Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) [MONEY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 June],
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer further powers upon the Greater London Council and other authorities, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for the remuneration of members of the staff commission to be established by the Secretary of State in pursuance of that Act or to defray any expenses of that commission.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Debate further adjourned till Thursday at Seven o'clock.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) [MONEY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 June]

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Minister of Transport interests or rights in land for road purposes it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Transport—

(a) in reinstating certain lands which form part of the subject matter of the said grant on completion of the purpose for which they are temporarily occupied by the Minister of Transport;
(b) in laying out and providing a new cricket ground and pavilion and other conveniences for the Epping Foresters Cricket Club;
(c) in reimbursing the Conservators such proportion of the costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred and properly paid by them in connection with the preparation, obtaining and passing of the said Act as is attributable to the provisions of that Act relating to the said grant; and
(d) in indemnifying the Conservators against actions, costs, claims and demands brought or made against or incurred by the Conservators which are caused by or arise out of the said grant and which are not attributable to the wrongful act, neglect or default of the Conservators or their contractors, agents, workmen or servants,—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question again proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Standing Commission on Pay Comparability (Staff)

Mr. John Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff now work for the Standing Commission on pay comparability; and what is his estimate of the number of staff who will work for it on 1 January 1980.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): The Standing Commission on pay comparability is one of the bodies serviced by the Office of Manpower Economics. There are eight staff at OME engaged solely on the Commission's work. As to its future, the Government intend that the Standing Commission on pay comparability should complete work on its current references and cases where a reference has already been agreed, and will review the position there after.

Mr. Grant: That leaves us with the same state of uncertainty as before. Will the Minister comment on the story on the front page of The Guardian today? Does that signify the first major U-turn by the Government in that they will now try a policy of wage restraint in the private sector as well as the public sector? If that is not the case, will the Minister say how soon the Government will introduce a freeze?

Mr. Prior: I have not read the front page of The Guardian today. Therefore I have some difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman's question. The policy of the Government is to proceed as at present and not to become engaged in pay policies.

Mr. Harry Ewing: What is the attitude of the Secretary of State to the present work of the comparability Commission? Will he say, for instance, whether the Government will honour what the comparability Commission says about the pay of nurses, Health Service ancillary workers and local authority manual workers?

Mr. Prior: Yes. We have already given that undertaking.

Job Creation

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he has in mind for reducing unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: We are continuing all the special employment measures this year, but some will be concentrated on the areas where unemployment is highest and the need for special assistance greatest. Our long-term strategy is to check the country's economic decline by restoring incentives, encouraging efficiency and creating a climate in which industry and commerce can create more jobs.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that while he has been engaging in nudge, nudge, wink, wink politics with trade union leaders and the media, Treasury Ministers, under the clear guidance of the Prime Minister, have been drawing up plans to put more than 2 million people on the dole by early 1980? Is it true that Saatchi and Saatchi have already made it clear that they cannot find a hoarding or poster bill site long enough to do another production for the Tory Party?

Mr. Prior: No one would ever accuse the hon. Gentleman of nudge, nudge, wink, wink politics. As usual, he has got it wrong.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the vague answer given by the Secretary of State, may I ask whether he is aware that in Scotland the number of vacancies compared with the amount of unemployment is small when compared with other parts of the United Kingdom? Therefore, what does he propose to do to improve the employment situation in Scotland, bearing in mind that the Government do not seem to be willing to exert themselves to bring the oil support vessels to a Scottish shipyard for construction, as they should have done?

Mr. Prior: The policies pursued over the past few years have not brought increased prosperity or better employment prospects to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should agree that it is time for the introduction of a new set of policies concentrated more on the private sector and the creation of wealth in society—and not


on propping up jobs, or people in jobs, which is of no use to them or the jobs.

Mr. Bulmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important contribution could be made to the reduction of unemployment by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his friends if they joined in urging trade union negotiators to put future job prospects above all other considerations in the coming wage round?

Mr. Prior: That is a helpful suggestion. At the moment I find that trade union leaders are a good deal more helpful than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Park: Does the Minister's reply mean that areas such as the West Midlands which have no special status, but have high unemployment rates, are likely to suffer cuts?

Mr. Prior: If areas such as the West Midlands have no special status at present there are no cuts from which they can suffer. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that provided the economy is allowed to grow and incentives are restored so that people feel that it is worth working, people in the West Midlands who are quite capable of looking after themselves will do so.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the West Midlands, having been the nerve centre of private enterprise in the past, should now be given every encouragement, through the creation of incentives in the small business sector, to produce the real jobs upon which private enterprise flourishes?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. What is more, if the West Midlands can help to replace some of our imports which we could make ourselves, that would make an enormous contribution to a reduction of the unemployment figures.

Mr. Varley: How can the Secretary of State for Employment reconcile a cut of £170 million in the employment and training support programmes when the Financial Statement and Budget Report, produced by the Treasury last Tuesday, make it abundantly clear that the unemployment level will rise over the next 12 months?

Mr. Prior: Simply on the grounds that people have the opportunity to provide jobs for themselves if the Government do not increase public expenditure to the extent that the previous Administration did. When I look back and think of the abject failure of the Labour Party, when in government, to provide the jobs required, I think that if I were the right hon. Gentleman, I should keep very quiet.

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the work experience scheme and youth opportunities programme.

The Under-Secretary of State lot Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): The resources made available to the Manpower Services Commission for its special programmes have been reviewed by the Government as part of their general review of public expenditure. In 1979–80 the youth opportunities programme will be reduced by £25 million. However, during the current financial year the programme will continue and will provide opportunities for about one-third more young people than in the last financial year and the two key national objectives for school leavers and long-term unemployed of the programme will remain.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister not feel that in view of the increased estimate of the number of unemployed—up to a figure of 2 million, according to the press—to retain the targets where they were for the youth opportunities programme is unsatisfactory, and that we shall need more, not fewer, resources for Easter 1980 and before that? Secondly, does he not feel that to promise jobs to those who have been out of work for more than 12 months is unsatisfactory, in that if a young person is out of work for that length of time to a large extent he is getting used to being on the dole, which is not a state of affairs at which we should be aiming?

Mr. Lester: I do not accept the figure of 2 million unemployed. As I have just said, the schemes will be increased by more than one-third on last year's figure, and the two national objectives for young people that are most important to all of us will be maintained.

Mr. Onslow: Can my hon. Friend say what consideration his Department is giving to allowing young people to increase their skills and widen their horizons by the development of an open tech on the lines of the open university?

Mr. Lester: This is a matter about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is most keen. He is looking at this suggestion at the moment.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the serious effect that the Budget will have on employment prospects, should not the Government be spending more on the youth opportunities programme rather than cutting it by £25 million? Should not the Government increase the temporary employment subsidy, because many people will be unemployed as a consequence of the Budget measures?

Mr. Lester: As I have already said, we are spending more this year than last year on the youth opportunities programme.

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he proposes to alleviate youth unemployment.

Mr. Jim Lester: The Government's economic and social policies will create a climate in which there will be more secure and wealth-creating jobs, and young people will benefit from this increased employment. In addition, the Government are committed to building on the achievements of the youth opportunities programme. As I have said already, numbers going through the programme are expected to be higher in 1979–80 than last year.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is not the key to successful measures for dealing with youth unemployment that there should be much more emphasis on the education and training content of the courses which young people might undergo? The percentage level of the content at the moment is extremely low. If young people are to be prepared to take the jobs that will be available, there must be much greater emphasis on training. Does my hon. Friend agree that a better way of administering schemes for youth employment would be to take them out of the hands of the Manpower Services Commission?

Mr. Lester: How we train young people in their last years at school and first years in employment is of great interest to us in the Department, and it is a matter which we are considering.

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the climate being created by the Government is a bitter and cold one and that the announcements made yesterday are bound to affect youth opportunities? Is it not time that the Government, even at this early stage, began to reverse their disastrous policies on youth employment?

Mr. Lester: As I have said already, we are very interested in youth employment. We believe that the Budget measures will create more real jobs, and we are maintaining the fall-back guarantee to ensure that no young person is without a job in his or her first year out of school.

Mr. Scott: Since my hon. Friend has expressed interest in training prospects for young people, will he say what attitude he and his colleagues take towards the document "A Better Start in Working Life" which was issued by his predecessors?

Mr. Lester: I am delighted to say that this document will continue to be published. We are inviting people to submit their views on this document, and I hope that hon. Members will read it and add to those contributions.

Mr. Golding: Will the Minister confirm that although the number of places provided for unemployed people under the age of 18 remains as it was under the previous Administration, the number of places provided for the young unemployed between the ages of 19 and 25 have been reduced substantially by cutting the special temporary employment programme?

Mr. Lester: Not in development areas and areas of high unemployment.

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to complete his review of the various job support programmes.

Mr. Prior: We announced the results of our review of the special measures for 1979–80 last week. We shall be considering the programme of measures for 1980–81 later this year, and discussing with the


Manpower Services Commission the future of the special measures it operates. In general, I believe assistance should be concentrated on the areas and groups with special employment needs.

Mr. Miller: Whilst welcoming that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will concentrate his attention in particular on the youth opportunities scheme for school leavers and on the job release scheme for pensioners to make way for young school leavers?

Mr. Prior: These are two schemes that have very great value, the youth opportunities scheme because it helps young people to get jobs and retain those jobs afterwards, and the job release scheme because it is a reasonable step to get more young people into jobs at a time when those who are nearing retirement age are being phased out. For the moment, at any rate, those two schemes will stay in operation.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Whilst looking at the job support schemes, would the right hon. Gentleman care to attempt to justify the disgraceful and callous decision to put more people on the dole in Merseyside, Ormskirk and Kirkby, to finance tax handouts to the already rich?

Mr. Prior: As usual, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework. The reductions in taxation have no such effect.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Of course they have.

Dr. Hampson: At a time when the youth and training programmes are to be cut, is it not a perverted priority for the Manpower Services Commission to be engaged in a massive and costly transfer to a tower block in Sheffield? Since it makes no sense in terms of the operation of the MSC, will my right hon. Friend review that decision and stop the transfer in order to free resources?

Mr. Prior: These are very deep and difficult matters of the dispersal of parts of the Civil Service from London. As my hon. Friend will know, this matter is under review at present, and I do not want to anticipate the outcome of that review.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On his way back to his Department this afternoon will the right hon. Gentleman pay a visit to the

Treasury, where Ministers seem to be better informed about the likely job prospects by the end of this year? Since Treasury Ministers do not deny that unemployment will reach between 1¾ million and 2 million by the end of this year, how can the right hon. Gentleman have a sensible review of the job support programme, since he seems to be in complete ignorance of the real problems facing him?

Mr. Prior: I think that right hon. and hon. Members who were in government until a little while ago should know that these forecasts are notoriously unreliable—[HON. Members: "Oh."] Perhaps they would like to consult the forecasts that were available to them just before the election.

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he plans to withdraw or reduce any of the assistance given for the promotion of employment in Northumberland.

Mr. Jim Lester: The Government have decided to continue the special employment measures operated by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission, but to focus them more sharply on areas with high levels of unemployment. Responsibility for regional industrial policy is a matter for my colleague the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that, already an area of high unemployment, much of rural Northumberland will be very much more so because of the Budget measures, which will hit jobs in the construction industry, quarries, pipe works, local government and other big employers? Can he at least hold out the hope that the measures—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member voted for the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Beith: Nonsense. The measurement—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman voted for the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Beith: The measures that the—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman brought us down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must allow someone else to ask a question.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Skinner: He should get it right.

Mr. Beith: Can the Minister hold out some hope that the measures of the Development Commission and the small firms employment subsidy, in services as well as manufacturing, will continue to be available in Northumberland?

Mr. Lester: These have been changed, in that the small firms employment subsidy now applies only to manufacturing industry. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that, necessarily, unemployment will be caused in these areas, because when we see the way in which the Budget measures work through in terms of incentive we may find that there is an increase in employment and not a decrease.

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to help unemployed persons find work in Consett and Stanley, County Durham.

Mr. Jim Lester: The resources of the Manpower Services Commission are available to help people to find jobs or enter training programmes.
In addition, since the Consett and Stanley area is part of a special development area it will continue to benefit from all the special employment measures.

Mr. Watkins: That is all very well, but are not all such efforts of the Department of Employment being nullified by the uncertainty of employment in Consett and Stanley, in the Northern region as a whole, and indeed throughout the country? This uncertainty is being increased by the policies of the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Lester: Entirely the opposite is true. The area of Consett and Stanley has already suffered very much in the past from pit closures, and our policy of putting the aid where it is most needed can only benefit the hon. Member's area.

Times Newspapers Limited

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what current discussions he is having with the

management and unions of Times Newspapers Ltd.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): My right hon. Friend is keeping in close touch with the situation at Times Newspapers Ltd. but so far has not had formal discussions with either management or unions. My right hon. Friend fully shares the House's concern about this dispute and remains willing to offer any assistance that seems likely to help towards a resumption of publication.

Mr. Price: Is the hon and learned Gentleman aware that I thought that the Government's policy was to let incompetent managements suffer the consequences of their own folly? Is Times Newspapers Ltd., in some sort of way, an exception? Will the Minister go a little further than his statement and say what the Secretary of State intends to do about this matter? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that more than 10,000 direct and related jobs in London are at stake? If The Times management cannot be sensible about the matter, will he turn to the BBC or someone else to take over Times Newspapers?

Mr. Mayhew: It is not for me to comment upon the hon. Gentleman's thought processes. However, my right hon. Friend is, of course, aware of the large number of jobs that depend upon the survival of Times Newspapers, and he is very anxious to miss no opportunity to make a useful intervention, but he does not wish to make one which would not be successful.

Mr. Aitken: Is my hon and learned Friend aware that at the heart of this dispute there lies a very serious problem of low productivity? In particular, is he aware that the NGA linotype operators on The Times, even using the new technology for which they claim a monopoly, are able to print only at a rate of 3,500 characters per hour whereas their German equivalents, using the same machinery, print at a rate of 18,500 characters per hour? Can any British industry survive that kind of low productivity imbalance?

Mr. Mayhew: The advent of new technology, as my hon. Friend knows, gives rise to many very difficult and complex problems. He is quite right in saying


that it is the advent of new technology that lies at the root of this dispute.

Disabled Persons

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy for the employment of disabled workers.

Mr. Jim Lester: Responsibility for employment services for disabled people rests with the Manpower Services Commission. The Government's policy is to support the Commission, particularly in its long-term aims of encouraging employers to develop more employment opportunities for disabled people and of gradually implementing its plans, published last year, for developing employment and training services for disabled people over the next five to 10 years.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the long-established quota system has not worked terribly well? As just one positive measure, will the Government introduce a third element into the Queen's Award to Industry which is currently given for export achievement and technological advance, namely an element for achievement in employing registered disabled people?

Mr. Lester: We are well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this problem. We recognise that the quota system has not worked successfully. We shall look at my hon. Friend's suggestion of other forms of incentives for people who help in dealing with this serious problem.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman consider a practice which has been used in other countries where quota system quotas have not been achieved? Will he consider imposing penal sanctions upon such firms so that money acquired thereby can be used for the benefit of the disabled and the good employers?

Mr. Lester: I think that the review currently being undertaken will probably produce a discussion document, to which the hon. Gentleman can contribute ideas such as that for our consideration.

Mr. Madel: Is the Manpower Services Commission considering putting additional resources into skillcentres so that some disabled people can learn a skill at them? There is evidence that a number of courses are unfilled and are not used in the skillcentres.

Mr. Lester: Various measures are operated by the MSC in skillcentres and in giving special grants for employers to improve their premises in order to employ disabled people. There are at least six measures, of which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, which are designed directly to help the employment of disabled people.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues to see whether it is possible to extend the mobility allowance to groups of disabled people such as agoraphobics, who would be able to go out to work and take part in society if only they could be helped to be mobile?

Mr. Lester: An allowance is already paid by my Department for disabled people to enable them to be mobile in terms of employment, but I undertake to look at the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will study the problems of structural unemployment in the West Midlands.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 10 May, 117,689 people were registered as unemployed in the West Midlands region. My right hon. Friend will keep all aspects of unemployment in the region under review, but the Government are confident that employment in the West Midlands will benefit from our policies of restoring incentives, encouraging efficiency and creating a climate in which commerce and industry can flourish and skills can be rewarded.

Mr. Rooker: Can the Minister offer an estimate of the increase in unemployment in the West Midlands, and in the country as a whole for that matter, by the policy, announced on 12 June in a written answer, to remove all job protection measures regarding unfair dismissal for people aged 16 to 18 years? Secondly, will he point out to those in the West Midlands, the skilled, semi-skilled and all others, how the Government's estimate of a decline in manufacturing output of 2½ per cent., given in the Red Book from the


Treasury, is compatible with decreasing unemployment in an area dependent on manufacturing anyway?

Mr. Skinner: The Minister cannot understand that.

Mr. Lester: The people of the West Midlands have always shown their resilence in the past, and I am sure that they will show it in the future.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister look at details of some 1,000 additional redundancies in private enterprise firms in the Cannock Chase area, details of which I have sent him? Does he agree that if we are to revitalise the British economy it is essential for the Government to introduce growth industries into the West Midlands?

Mr. Lester: I shall certainly look at the papers that the hon. Gentleman has sent me. They have not arrived yet. We want to look at all aspects of employment because we are most interested to make sure that all the regions of Britain make their contribution, particularly those such as the West Midlands.

Mr. Lawrence: I welcome the Government's measures to reduce the high level of unemployment in the West Midlands. Is it not, nevertheless, a fact that in areas of the West Midlands such as Burton on Trent, where the trade unions are less powerfully spread and, where they are spread, are very responsible, coupled with the fact that there are larger groups of private industries and private businesses at work, the level of unemployment is lower?

Mr. Lester: The level of unemployment in the West Midlands is 5 per cent., which is below the national average.

Miss Boothroyd: In reviewing the job support programme, will the Minister bear in mind that although the Government had a mandate to create more jobs they did not have a mandate to destroy existing jobs until new ones were created? Will he indicate clearly to the people of the West Midlands, thousands of whose jobs depend on the job support programme, when they will cease to be resilient and when the Tory axe will fall on their livelihood?

Mr. Lester: There is no direct relationship between Government assisted

jobs and unemployment rates. We shall see that coming through in the next six to nine months.

Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in the West Midlands have watched with interest and approval the effect of tax cuts on employment in California? Many people in the West Midlands are looking for a similar result from the Budget.

Mr. Lester: What is clear is that all the hon. Members from the West Midlands certainly do their job in the House

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unknowledgeable answer to my original question and the refusal of the Minister to answer the first part of it, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the sake of new hon. Members, 1 point out that there is a formula—
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply"—
that covers everything that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is indicating.

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the labour force aged under 25 years in the Brighton area was unemployed at the latest date for which information is available.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I regret that unemployment rates for separate age ranges are not available for local areas, but at April 1979, 1,715 people under 25 years of age were registered as unemployed in the Brighton and Hove area.

Mr. Sainsbury: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that unemployment in that age range, as in others in the Brighton and Hove area, is well above the national average? In those circumstances, is it not reasonable to continue the special temporary employment programme, particularly as it has been said that it will sensibly be concentrated in those areas where there is above average unemployment?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The epitome of private enterprise.

Mr. Mayhew: Unemployment is too high in my hon. Friend's constituency. The best remedy for unemployment is to restore incentives, encourage efficiency and, in particular, reduce the burden on small businesses imposed by the previous Government.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were registered as unemployed at the most recent count; and what was the figure in the same month in 1974.

Mr. Prior: At May 1979, 1,238,468 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain compared with 535,368 in May 1974.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures clearly show the failure of the Labour Government to deal with unemployment? There is a time lag of 12 to 18 months between the introduction of Government measures and their effect on the level of unemployment. Will he say how much he expects unemployment to rise in the next 12 months as a direct result of the policies of the Labour Party.

Mr. Prior: Looking at the figures, one is amazed at the hypocrisy of Labour Members and surprised that they are even able to open their mouths. I suspect that unemployment will rise in the next 12 to 18 months through a combination of factors. [Hon. Members: "By how much?"] The chief factor will be the legacy that we have been left by the previous Government. The second will be the rise in oil prices and the lack of trade throughout the world. As with the previous Government, it might be unwise for me to state a figure.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that he has received the Treasury forecast that by the end of this year 2 million people will be unemployed? Will he state within that forecast how many people he expects to be unemployed because of the withdrawal of the small firms employment subsidy from manufacturing firms outside the development and special development areas?

Mr. Prior: I receive many forecasts from the Treasury and other people. The forecasts are not published. There is no way in which they can be precise, any more than, for example, can the forecast

of 4 million unemployed produced recently by Mr. Clive Jenkins and his union. As for the small firms employment subsidy, I believe that the number of jobs created through that subsidy is practically nil.

Mr. Adley: Are not the figures given in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) a clear indictment of what happens after five years of Labour Government, compared with what happened after four years of Conservative Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people understand what has happened and recognise that it will take 12 to 18 months, or even two years, to put things right? Therefore, my right hon. Friend is perfectly correct in not trying to pretend that we can reduce unemployment immediately. The undoing of the damage caused by the previous Government's policy will take some time.

Mr. Prior: The country certainly recognises that the previous Government's policies are unlikely to have a lasting or beneficial effect on the economy or employment. It is right, and the country supports this, that we should be pursuing fresh policies and making a fresh initiative. Reductions in public expenditure and the incentives that we offer to those on the shop floor through to managing directors are part of that new approach. That approach stands much more chance of success than the policies pursued by the previous Government.

Mr. Buchan: Since the only policy that the Government appear to be adopting on unemployment is to create climates, will not the only growth industry left be the met offices and the employment exchanges?

Mr. Prior: Everything that has been said from the Opposition Benches this afternoon shows the utter barrenness and poverty of Labour policies and the Opposition's total inability to create jobs themselves without taxing everyone to the hilt to create non-jobs. In the long run, that is no way to make Britain prosperous again.

Mr. Varley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to be precise, but will he be bold enough to say whether in 12 months' time the unemployment figure will be higher or lower than it is today?

Mr. Prior: In view of what I have said, I suspect that it is likely to be higher in 12 months' time than today. When I listen to what is said by Labour Members, I am not surprised.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are registered as unemployed at Brixton employment office; and what percentage of that figure is constituted by ethnic minorities.

Mr. Jim Lester: At 10 May, 6,218 people were registered as unemployed in the Brixton employment office area and, of these, 19 per cent. were known to be ethnic minority group workers.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Under-Secretary agree that, for an inner city area, figures of those dimensions are not only bad but represent a threat to peace and stability in the community? To what extent will the Chancellor's public expenditure cuts increase those figures in the next year? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the employment aspect of the inner city partnership will not be cut?

Mr. Lester: Those figures are serious and must be looked at with care over the next six months. It is encouraging to see that the young blacks continue to make good use of the opportunities offered under these schemes.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment rate in pockets of the Greater London area, particularly South and South-East London, is as high as, and in some cases higher than, in many of the development areas? In those circumstances, will he reconsider the phasing out of schemes for the non-development areas in these inner city pockets of serious unemployment?

Mr. Lester: The question of reconsidering areas is not a matter for my Department. One of the problems of the policy of the previous Administration was that they gave aid in a broad sense to a vast area of the country and we still had pockets of high unemployment within those areas. We need to examine that, and we must revise our policy to meet the needs.

Jobcentres

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what

has been the aggregate cost to public funds to date of jobcentres opened by the Manpower Services Agency since its inception; what is his latest estimate of the cost of additions to the existing list of establishments in the current financial year; and what plans he has for economies.

Mr. Mayhew: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that information in the form requested is obtainable only at disproportionate cost. Capital expenditure on jobcentres in the financial years 1975–76 to 1978–79 inclusive was about £19·5 million. There are additional non-capital costs but these are small in relation to capital expenditure.
As part of the reductions in spending by the MSC in 1979–80 announced on 12 June, there will be a reduction in expenditure on the jobcentre programme of £1 million in the current financial year. Following this reduction estimated capital expenditure in the current financial year is £5·4 million. Expenditure in subsequent years is under review.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful for that reply which I shall read with care. Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that these so-called jobcentres require on average five times the number of peopel to work in them than a comparable establishment in the private sector? In view of that, I am grateful for the modest retrenchment announced in the Budget. However, is there not a case now for releasing far more of this programme for the expansion of private sector employment agencies, which have proved infinitely more efficient over the years?

Mr. Mayhew: The private sector is vigorous but it does not offer a uniform service, either geographically or in terms of the vacancies advertised. Clerical and white collar vacancies dominate the private sector. Jobcentres have an additional function in acting as brokers for the training and other schemes that are operated by the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Hooley: Does the Minister agree that the task of the Manpower Services Commission must be seen as a whole—as a duty for the training and deployment of labour over the whole country? One cannot simply chop off bits here and there


and expect a reasonable employment strategy to develop.

Mr. Mayhew: Any policy relating to the Manpower Services Commission must be reasonable and carefully balanced.

Mr. Costain: The Public Accounts Committee report has criticised these jobcentres for taking premises at very high rents. Will my hon. and learned Friend look into that?

Mr. Mayhew: Following a rent review, the jobcentre in Piccadilly has been found to be operating at an excessive cost. Accordingly the Commission is seeking to assign its lease of the premises and close that jobcentre in the near future.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Civil Service employees in jobcentres, as they do a very good job? Does he agree that his remarks in answer to this question amount to a repudiation of the Rightwing extremists who want to raid every Government service, including the jobcentres, and create nothing but resentment among civil servants working there?

Mr. Mayhew: I know of no Right-wing extremists in my party, although I cannot say the same for the Labour Party. I gratefully accept the opportunity to pay tribute to those who work in the jobcentres.

Mr. Cormack: Why is my hon. and learned Friend prepared to accept the guff with which he began his answer and claim that this simple information could not be provided without disproportionate cost? I think that it could easily be provided by looking down the annual lists.

Mr. Mayhew: That is not my advice.

TUC AND CBI

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister when she expects next to meet the leaders of the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I shall be meeting the economic committee of the TUC next Monday.

Mr. Winnick: That is very interesting. Is it not clear that, with the rich man's Budget, the abolition of the Price Commission and the devaluation of the green

pound, full responsibility for the high rates of inflation and the discontent which will certainly come will lie with the right hon. Lady and her Administration?

The Prime Minister: Bearing in mind that the Budget took 1·3 million people out of tax altogether, that it helps elderly folk who have to pay tax and that it helps taxpayers throughout the wage scale to pay less tax and have more money in their pockets to spend in their own way, I should have thought that the TUC would welcome the Budget.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Before my right hon. Friend sees the TUC, will she look at the speech made last weekend by the Leader of the Opposition in which he said that it would be quite wrong for the trade union movement of this country to precipitate politically motivated strikes in order to bring down this Government? Is she aware that that view has the overwhelming support of hon. Members of this House and will she ensure that a copy of that speech is placed in the Library of the House of Commons so that in the coming months when the situation may be rather different, all hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition may refresh their memories on the details of the speech?

The Prime Minister: That is the view of all who believe in parliamentary democracy, and it is shared by the vast majority of trade union members and a considerable number of trade union leaders.

Mr. David Steel: Can the Prime Minister confirm the report this morning that the Government are engaged in constructing a pay policy, even if it is to be known by some other name? If so, may we be told when we shall hear about it?

The Prime Minister: I am not able to confirm that. The right hon. Gentleman knows my views on these matters. The only incomes policy in which I am interested is an output policy—to get increasing output at competitive prices. That is the only way to get a rising standard of living in this country. The Budget was designed as a first step in that direction.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of that, will the Prime Minister, when she meets the leaders of the TUC, be able to assure


them that there will be no question of a wages freeze or an incomes policy under her Government?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has heard me on this subject before. On that particular issue I do not rule things out for ever, but let me assure him that I shall strain against them because I believe that it is far better for people to be faced with the consequences of their own wage claims than to try to save them from them.

Mr. Emery: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the leaders of the TUC next monday that a considerable amount of the £700 million investment being made by General Motors in Spain would have been made in Britain had the trade unions been able to guarantee consistently a reliable and high level of output by a British labour force?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's basic premise that we would get more investment both from overseas and from home if people could be assured of a good return on that investment. That means having a go at restrictive practices and also making sure that those who make the investments will get reasonable interest or dividends from them.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister when she plans next to meet the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: I shall be meeting the economic committee of the TUC next Monday.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the fact that the Government are pushing inflation to a rate of 17 per cent. or 20 per cent. this year, with massive tax handouts to the very rich, will the right hon. Lady give the TUC any guidance on wage restraints?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, taxpayers are keeping more of their own money in their pockets. That applies whether they are on low or high pay. If they are very low paid they will receive an increase in family income supplement. As for wage restraint, if wage levels rise steeply without increased output, the result, as has frequently been said from this Dispatch Box, will be increased unemployment.

Mr. Forman: As my right hon. Friend has already stressed the importance of trade unionists facing the consequences of their actions, will she reassure those of us who value the idea of a wider economic forum—within NEDC or a similar framework—that such a proposal might be put into effect?

The Prime Minister: I cannot tell my hon. Friend when it will be put into effect, but I can tell him that work is proceeding on the setting up of such a forum. It will be wider than the TUC and the CBI, as we indicated in our manifesto.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC a report of the Department of Energy that three-quarters of British oil is being exported? Why is it just that there should be an undercutting of the standard of living in this country in favour of the oil companies' profits?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman inquires further he will find that a good deal of the oil belonging to BNOC was being exported. BNOC has no refining capacity, and it was selling some of that oil abroad without linking it to the import of crude oil into Britain. Such linkage was much more likely with the commercial companies. The Secretary of State for Energy is doing all that he can to ensure that we receive all the oil supplies that we need.

Mr. Crouch: When the Prime Minister meets the TUC, will she discuss the possibility of arranging a major conference to consider improving productivity in British industry?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great need for such an improvement. We are concerned about the lack of competitiveness in our labour costs last year when compared with other countries. There is a need to increase productivity and output, but I doubt whether a conference will help that. Now that incentives have been given to those on the shop floor, skilled workers and management, I believe that, between them, they will help to achieve the improvement.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: When the Prime Minister meets the economic committee will she clear up the doubts that are being expressed by trade unionists


throughout the country that the Government are going back on the principle of comparability between earnings in the public services and those in private industry? Will she, in advance of the publication of the Clegg commission's report, undertake that the Government will accept what the report says about comparability?

The Prime Minister: We have already given a clear undertaking that we will accept what the Clegg commission says about the first four or five references to it. As for the future of the Clegg commission, it would be far better to wait and see how it works before deciding its future finally.

Mr. Renton: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC will she confirm the Government's strong commitment to encouraging employees to own shares in the companies for which they work—including the successful nationalised industries? Is that not a far better route to employee participation than the unionnominated directors suggested in the Bullock report?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is our wish that those who work in industry—whether public or private industry—should make great strides towards being real capital owners.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Prime Minister when she expects to meet the Trade Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have given twice already.

Mr. Evans: When the Prime Minister meets the economic committee on Monday will she engage its members in a discussion about whether it would be better to spend taxpayers' money on organisations such as the NEB which are attempting to create jobs than on unemployment benefit because there are no jobs?

The Prime Minister: If more taxpayers' money is left in their pockets they can create jobs by the goods and services that they purchase. One of the great differences between Labour and Conservative, Members is that we believe that

taxpayers are entitled to spend more of their money as they choose.

Mr. Neubert: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC will she weary it by impressing upon it—yet again—that higher production and productivity are the only solution to our economic problem? Will she point out that the Central Electricity Generating Board is considering bringing in more coal because insufficient coal at a competitive cost is available from our bountiful resources?

The Prime Minister: I shall stress continually the need for increased output at competitive prices. I hope that debates on that subject will take the place of debates on incomes policy, as has been the case in the past. Increased output is the other and the important side of the equation. We cannot stress that too much. In that way lies the only hope for improving our standard of living.

Mr. Ashton: If productivity does not increase because of the Budget, will the Prime Minister give fair warning to the TUC of the levels of inflation and unemployment that will have to be reached before a wage freeze is imposed.

The Prime Minister: The only way to achieve increased productivity is to give people incentives to increase output. That applies to unskilled and skilled workers, to management and to those working in manufacturing or services or in the public sector at any level.

Mr. Grylls: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC will she explain that the central part of the Budget is to achieve the right climate to establish the expansion of real jobs in the private sector rather than to subsidise jobs which will not last for long?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to get that strategy across. Countries which have had a lesser proportion of jobs in the public sector, more in the private sector and a tax system which provides more incentives have been more successful at creating new jobs, products and services than this country has been. There is no magic about that. Our first Budget is going in that direction, and I hope that we shall be able to create more genuine new jobs than have been created in the past.

Mr. Rooker: asked the Prime Minister when she expects to meet the leaders of the Confederation of British Industry.

The Prime Minister: I hope to do so shortly and a date is being arranged.

Mr. Rooker: Before the Prime Minister tells the CBI, will she tell the House why the Government are proposing to increase youth unemployment by removing the job protection measures for youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 years? The removal was detailed in a written answer last week.

The Prime Minister: The Government are not removing job opportunities from young people. We are hoping that because of the Budget more small businesses will be prepared to take on more young people, but we believe that the Labour measure was a deterrent to that effect.

Mr. Scott: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, in the work that is being carried out on the proposal for a wider forum, consideration will be given to involving representatives of the majority of workers in this country who do not belong to unions affiliated to the TUC?

The Prime Minister: We shall give consideration to the matter. It is not easy to arrange because those workers are not represented. However, we are anxious to

have a wider forum than just that of the TUC and the CBI.

Mr. Skinner: On the question of parliamentary democracy and mandates, will the Prime Minister indicate to me where in the Tory Party manifesto there is a reference to imposing a 15 per cent. limit on VAT? As she will not be able to find that reference, is it not clear that she has no mandate for carrying forward that policy? Therefore, is it not right and proper for Labour Members to engage in activities in order to ensure that those who suffer injustices will have them put right—whether inside or outside Parliament?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman objects to measures taken by the Government, I suggest with respect that this House is the place for him to pursue his own particular views.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Lady has no mandate.

The Prime Minister: We certainly have a mandate.

Mr. Skinner: Not on that matter.

The Prime Minister: We have a mandate for reducing direct tax and for increasing indirect tax. I think that the hon. Gentleman's fear is that this Budget will be a great deal more popular than he supposes.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TERRORIST ACTIVITIES)

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the spate of IRA bombings in Northern Ireland today and the killing of yet another member of the Ulster Defence Regiment".
On Sunday last Mr. Gerry Adams, one of the leaders of the Provisional IRA, used the territory of the Republic to launch a call for the intensification of the war in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland today has experienced something of that intensification. A courageous member of the UDR, John Alan Hannigan, was brutally murdered on his way to work in the town of Omagh this morning. A carefully co-ordinated blitz of bombings took place across the Province from Ballycastle, in my constituency—where the Marine hotel was completely devastated—to Armagh, Rostrevor and Newry, and also in the centre of Belfast, where the Wellington Park hotel was the object of five explosive devices.
The people of Northern Ireland are very alarmed at the increase in IRA activity. I believe that it is the duty of this House immediately to consider the spate of bombings, the intensification of the IRA's campaign, and especially the

terrible killings that have taken place in the last hours and days. It is the duty of the Government to put pressure on the Government of the Republic so that those who commit murders in the North of Ireland shall no longer have a safe refuge in the territory of the South.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) gave me notice this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the spate of IRA bombings in Northern Ireland today and the killing of yet another member of the Ulster Defence Regiment".
I listened with anxious care to the hon. Gentleman, as I know the House did. The House is aware that my powers are limited in this matter and that I do not decide whether it shall be discussed; I merely decide whether it should be discussed tonight or tomorrow.
Bearing that fact in mind, and remembering that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot rule that his submission falls within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Since this is the first occasion on which the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has taken his place on the Labour Front Bench, I wish to begin by congratulating him on his appointment as Shadow spokesman on education. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members on both sides of the House who know the hon. Gentleman will be in no doubt that his contributions to our debates will be of interest and of considerable controversy. I look forward with great interest to see how great that controversy will be. For those of us who take part in these debates it will have the further advantage of giving us greater practice in the correct pronunciation of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The hon. Gentleman's presence on the Opposition Front Bench seems to be clear evidence of a considerable Leftward lurch of the Labour Party in opposition. I have no doubt that it will be recognised as such. I know that the hon. Member will find, as I have found, that whatever part of the country he visits there is always a genuine interest and concern among parents about education.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman will not open today's debate for the Opposition. I gather that instead he wishes to hear the contributions of other Members to the debate before he makes a speech at the end. I assure him on behalf of everybody on the Government Benches that we are clear and determined that he will have many long years in opposition to learn every aspect of his craft.
The hon. Gentleman's place in opening today's debate is being taken by the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). I understand that he is making his swansong as education spokesman. Before turning to the Bill, I wish, as a neighbouring Member of Parliament who

shares with him in this House the representation of a district, to congratulate him on his appointment to the Privy Council. That appointment gave great pleasure to many of the people he represents.
I now turn to the Bill. I looked back to the debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill 1976, a debate held in this House on 4 February 1976, and was interested to note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and at that time the Opposition spokesman on education matters, closed his speech with these words:
We will do our best to defeat the Bill today. If we do not succeed in that we will do what we can to improve the objectionable clauses. If we are prevented from doing that, we will, when the moment comes, repeal them, because they constitute a threat both to liberty and to learning."—[Official Report, 4 February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 1246.]
That moment has now come. The Education Bill that we are now debating was the first Bill to be introduced to Parliament by the present Government on 17 May, it is the second Bill to have a Second Reading debate. Therefore, we have at the earliest opportunity carried out our election pledge to repeal those sections of the 1976 Act and to restore to local education authorities and to local people the right to choose the type of secondary education they wish to have in their areas.
The Bill is very short. It has two clauses, and its scope is limited.
Its simple and sole purpose is to remove the compulsion placed on local authorities and governors of voluntary schools by the 1976 Act to reorganise their secondary schools on comprehensive lines. It does not force the reintroduction of selection. It does not reflect any Government hostility towards comprehensive schools. The Bill in no way prevents authorities in the future from submitting proposals for the reorganisation of their schools on comprehensive lines where this accords with the wishes of local people.
What the Bill does is to restore the position to what it was under the 1944 Education Act. It removes secondary reorganisation from the field of compulsion and places it where it belongs—in the hands of local people. It is our belief that local education authorities and local


people—not central Government—are best placed to determine the most suitable form of secondary school organisation in their area. Above all, the Bill allows those areas that have fought—and fought hard—throughout the period of a Labour Government to retain their grammar schools to be allowed to do so. We are not prepared to stand by and witness the destruction of schools of proven worth against the wishes of the local people.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This question was raised on the Secretary of State's first day in the House of Commons. He failed to answer it then, but has now had more time to master his brief. He talked about local authorities knowing the situation better. If that is a principle to which he and his Government subscribe, why does he not emphasise and use the same principle regarding housing? It is partly his responsibility, as a member of the Cabinet. Why take away housing powers from local authorities but give them powers in education?

Mr. Carlisle: The purpose of the Bill is to restore freedom to local authorities and to local people, as are our provisions in housing. We believe that local people should have a say in the way that schools are provided. On houses we believe that local people should have the right to buy them if they wish to do so.
It is a fact that many areas of the country have freely chosen over the past decade to reorganise their schools on comprehensive lines. It is a fact that certain Conservative authorities were among the first to carry out such a reorganisation, the reason why they did so is clear. They had looked at an area and the needs of that area. They had looked at buildings, at population trends, at the quality of education being provided in the schools, and had come to the conclusion that the best way of carrying out their duty to provide an education under which children could develop their abilities and aptitudes to the full was to develop comprehensive schools. That was their choice, but it is that test—the development of ability and aptitude—which is the one that really counts. Prior to 1976, under Governments of both political colours, local authorities were free to apply that test.
In recent years, under a Socialist Administration, decisions which should have

been guided by educational criteria have instead been made on purely political grounds. The comprehensive school has been seen by the Labour Party as a means of achieving social equality and has therefore been compulsorily introduced by those more concerned with egalitarianism than with educational excellence.
This Government believe that the judgment whether a selective or a comprehensive system is the best for an area should be left to the local people. We say that, first, on the ground of priciple. Under the 1944 Act, it has always been accepted that the education service, is a national service but is locally provided, and that it is a partnership in which responsiblities are assigned both to central Government and local government. The 1976 Act represented an unwanted intrusion by central Government into the delicate balance that had always been based on consensus between the two partners. We say that choice should be left to the local people also on hard, practical grounds. The judgment of what is the most suitable form of secondary education for an area is often an intricate one, and must be rooted in the will of local people if the change is to be accepted and to succeed.
Why should the Secretary of State and his officials in Elizabeth House attempt to dictate to a local education authority, which may be many miles away, that one type of school organisation and no other is the right solution for that area? We believe that local people are in a better position to decide. What sense does it make to remove good schools—grammar schools or secondary modern schools—if local people are not satisfied that the change is for the good of their children?

Mr. Christopher Price: In saying that, with which we would all agree, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that he will not use his veto powers under section 13 of the Act, as the Prime Minister did when she was Secretary of State, to frustrate applications to go comprehensive by local education authorities that wish to do so?

Mr. Carlisle: I am coming to section 13. I thought that I had made clear at the outset that the Bill does not in itself prevent any application by a local


authority to change should it wish to do so.
What service is given to the comprehensive cause if new comprehensive schools are hastily cobbled together in old buildings with inadequate facilities? Decisions must be made locally not only on the comprehensive principle but on the timing of any change. It is only locally that an accurate assessment can be made of all the complicated interaction between the wishes of local people, the condition of buildings, the financial resources available, and the preparedness of teaching staff on whom the success or otherwise of that change depends.
I would like briefly to emphasise one or two points. I said earlier that the Bill does not force the reintroduction of selection. We are not proposing to replace one form of compulsion with another. There will be no obligation on local education authorities to submit new selective schemes if they do not wish to do so. No authority is compelled by the Bill to make any change whatever. My overwhelming impression is that at present, in many areas, whether selective or comprehensive, authorities want most of all a period of stability to concentrate not on organisation but on the quality of education in their schools. It is the quality of education that is inevitably the main concern of parents with children at those schools.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: What will happen in areas in which there is a selective system and children who perhaps are slow starters find at a later stage that they have the ability to move onwards? What will happen to give those children the opportunities to move forward into further levels of education that they would have under a comprehensive system?

Mr. Carlisle: The answer is that the local education authority should have, as many of them did in the past, means by which children can transfer at any age. It is a fact that many 16-year-olds, for example, transfer at this moment.

Miss Sheila Wright: Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of children transferring from secondary modern school to

grammar school has always depended on the number of children transferring from grammar school to secondary modern, so that normally there is a set number of children in a certain form? That is what has happened in the past.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that with regard to my own authority, and neither do I believe that, with the effects of falling numbers in secondary schools that we shall have over the next 15 years, it is likely to apply in the future.
Let me now give one or two figures to the House, because they are important. At the beginning of January last year, there were about 305 maintained grammar schools still in existence. During the course of last year that number dropped by about 50. More such schools will be changing their role and becoming comprehensive this autumn. In half the local education authority areas in England and Wales, all secondary schools are today comprehensive, but that means that the other half retain at least one grammar school.
Just as the Bill does not force a change, equally, it does not prevent an authority from making a proposal for change should it wish to do so. As has been said already, some authorities which today have selective schools are reorganising certain of those schools on comprehensive lines, and may still wish to do so. Equally, some authorities with a comprehensive system of secondary education may wish to reintroduce a degree of selection.
In either case, the initiative will have come from the authority itself, and any such proposal for change—I come here to the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price)—has under the 1944 Education Act to be made to me as Secretary of State. Under the provisions of that Act, a period of two months then has to elapse in which local parents may make their views known. Having considered all the circumstances and all the objections, I shall then have to decide whether to agree to the proposals, either in whole or in part, or to reject them.
In reaching my decision, I shall reserve to myself the right to consider each case on its merits, as has always been done, taking particular account of the effect of the proposals on the standard of educa


tion being provided in the area and the views expressed by local people.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Where a local authority has had approval for a comprehensive system, where it has spent money on the buildings and appointed staff, and it has then temporarily not carried out the reorganisation, does it need to go to a section 13 application again?

Mr. Carlisle: Knowing the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I assume that he is referring to Tameside. I have already indicated my view to Tameside that, since the approval which it received, given so long ago as 1975, related to a particular date, namely, October 1976, and since, following upon that approval, the council resolved not to go ahead with those proposals—indeed, at one stage the council was requested to put in alternative proposals—I consider that that permission, given, as I say, in 1975, is now spent and that the correct course for Tameside, should it wish to reorganise on comprehensive lines, is to submit new proposals under section 13.
I have conveyed those views to Tameside. I understand that the authority has not yet officially notified its views to my Department, but I believe that it is likely to ask for a meeting with me in the near future, and I shall, of course, meet its representatives to discuss the matter.
Our policy is to maintain and improve the standard of all our schools, whether they be grammar, comprehensive or secondary modern schools, or public schools. The Labour Party believes in the absolutism of the comprehensive principle—that all schools must be comprehensive if any school is to be comprehensive. We do not share that view. We believe in a variety of types of school to meet the differing needs of education. We believe that, according to local circumstances, grammar schools and comprehensive schools can exist in different areas of the same authority. The real question is not the label but whether they are good schools providing an education suited to the needs of their pupils and to the satisfaction of their parents.

Miss Joan Lestor: Does the Secretary of State recall that over the years the Conservative Party has argued about freedom of choice for

parents in secondary education? The whole thrust of his argument now is for freedom of choice for local authorities. When children are selected for a grammar school or a secondary modern school under a selective system, who makes the choice?

Mr. Carlisle: I have argued, I thought, for freedom of choice for both the local authority and for parents. When asked about section 13, I said that the whole principle of that section is that it works on the initiative of the local authority and the reaction by the local people to the proposals made.
As for the hon. Lady's question, clearly, if one has a selective system and if it is necessary to pass the selective system to get into a particular school, the only people who can set that selective system are the local education authorities and the schools themselves. Of course, that is so. But if an area has a system—as many areas have—where there is a comprehensive school giving education through from 11 to 18, with its own sixth form, and in the area of the same authority there is a grammar school, this still gives parents the choice to decide whether they wish their child to try to get into the grammar school or whether, for various other reasons, they wish the child to go to the comprehensive school which is providing education from 11 through to 18.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: What freedom of choice is there for a child who wants to go to a grammar school, is forced to take the 11-plus examination, as in my constituency—it will have to continue if the Bill goes through—and then fails the 11-plus, as most do, whereas a child in a nearby area who happens to have been born in a different place and lives in a different place will not have to take the 11-plus? The existence of this examination has not even been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, yet that in itself represents a loss of freedom of choice.

Mr. Carlisle: With the greatest respect, there is a total fallacy in what the hon. Lady says. The fact that one does not have a grammar school does not mean that one therefore has a greater degree of choice than if one has a grammar school to which one does not wish to go.


Yet that is what the hon. Lady is saying. If the grammar school is not there, there is still the one school. There is no choice there. The hon. Lady says that the child fails to get into the selective grammar school, but she does not in any way defeat the argument by saying that if there were not the test one would somehow get a wider degree of choice.
I have given way a good deal and, with respect, I wish now to turn to the details of this short Bill. Clause 1 repeals those provisions of the Education Act 1976 which relate to comprehensive education and contain transitory provisions relating to proposals submitted in compliance with the requirements of the previous Administration and which have either been approved or are awaiting a decision at the end of a period of public notice.
Clause 1(1) repeals sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1976 Act. Local education authorities will, therefore, no longer be required to have regard to the comprehensive principle in the exercise of their functions relating to secondary education. The Secretary of State will also no longer be empowered, as he was under section 2 of the 1976 Act, to require local education authorities or the managing or governing bodies of voluntary schools to transmit or submit proposals for giving effect to the comprehensive principle in their area.
Under section 2 of the 1976 Act it is also possible for the Secretary of State to require further proposals from either the authority or the governing body in substitution for those submitted if the Secretary of State considers them to be unsatisfactory for any reason. Those powers will no longer exist.
As I said in the House on 16 May, those local authorities which were requested by the previous Government to submit proposals under section 2 of the 1976 Act have been informed that they need no longer do so.
Section 3 of the 1976 Act enables the Secretary of State to direct that the proposals submitted under section 2 be treated as though they had been voluntarily submitted under section 13 of the 1944 Act, which is the section that requires application to be made to the Minister if any significant change in the character of a school is proposed. Section 3 is also to be repealed.
The remainder of the clause relates in detail to proposals that the previous Secretary of State directed should be treated as if they were submitted under section 13 of the 1944 Act. The effect of such a direction was to require public notice to be given of the proposals, for objections to be received within two months, and for the Secretary of State to approve, reject, or approve with modifications, those proposals. That means that the transitory provisions have to deal with two situations—first, where approval has already been given and, secondly, where the period of notice is continuing.
Subsection (3) provides that where proposals have been approved under section 13(4) of the 1944 Act the Secretary of State may, on the application of the local education authority, managers or governors of voluntary schools, revoke that approval. If that power were not taken there would be no means by which an authority or governing body could be freed from its duty to give effect to the approved proposals that it had been forced earlier to make under the 1976 Act.

Dr. Keith Hampson: If I understand the Secretary of State correctly he is proposing a one-off advantage for authorities, whereas in section 13 of the 1944 Act there was a final process under which a local authority need not carry out proposals that had been approved by the Secretary of State. That provision was removed by the last Government in the 1976 Act. Should we not give full freedom so that if a local authority changes or has trouble with costs it is free to decide whether to implement the proposals?

Mr. Carlisle: No. The Bill does not repeal section 4 of the 1976 Act. I shall consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) said, but I am not at the moment persuaded that that would be right. One must have a degree of finality in such matters. If we were to remove section 4 we should never achieve that finality, because an authority could change its mind at any stage in the process of reorganisation.
Subsection (4) deals with those local education authorities and governing bodies which have been required under the 1976 Act to give public notice of reorganisation proposals and when those


proposals have not yet been considered by the Secretary of State. In those cases the proposals will lapse under the terms of the Bill unless a local education authority or a governing body requests me in writing to continue to consider its proposals as if they had been submitted voluntarily under the 1944 Act. The Bill provides that any such request shall be submitted by 1 October.
Clause 2 covers the customary provisions relating to the citation, construction and extent of the Bill.
The Bill is aimed at repealing what I can only call the penal clauses of the 1976 Act. Despite the general welcome that the Bill has received from the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities I understand that the Opposition are likely to oppose it.

Mr. Martin Flannery: That is dead right.

Mr. Carlisle: The Opposition's views are not reflected by the local authorities. The Opposition apparently are content with the 1976 Act. It was an extraordinary piece of legislation. It was not about quality of education or standards. It was not even about improving comprehensive schools. It was solely about compulsion. It was an attempt to compel the whole country to adopt only one type of education just because the Labour Party thought that it was good for us all. Despite that, one or two of its members did not take advantage of the system.
If it had been shown conclusively that a comprehensive school offered far and away the best education for every child in the country there might have been some justification for the 1976 Act, although, in a free society, I can see no ground for the use of State compulsion. If it had been shown to be vastly superior, there would have been no need for compulsion. Parents would have fallen over themselves to have that type of education provided for their area and all other schools would have withered away. However, there is no such evidence.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The Secretary of State talks about the freedom of local authorities and about not compelling them. Will the authorities be given the same freedom in relation to the sale of council houses?

Mr. Carlisle: It is sometimes dangerous to come into the Chamber halfway through a speech. The same question was raised by another hon. Member earlier.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And my right hon. and learned Friend dealt with the intervention well.

Mr. Carlisle: One sometimes experiences advantages at the Dispatch Box that one did not enjoy on the Back Benches. Perhaps it has something to do with the reorganisation of the boundaries in Cheshire.
Of course there are good comprehensive schools. A major part of our education policy is to see that the 83 per cent. of our children who are being educated in comprehensive schools receive the best possible education in those schools. However, there is no overwhelming evidence to demonstrate that comprehensive schools provide the best possible education for all children. So long as that is so, there can be no justification for preferring this type of school above all others.
Our policy involves not equality but equality of opportunity. Too many people have attempted to equate equality of opportunity with identical education. That takes no account of children's varying talents. Education is about schools and standards, but first and foremost about children. Parents have the legal duty to educate their children—a duty that does not rest upon the local education authorities. Those authorities are merely required to provide adequate facilities so that parents may exercise their duty.
It is parents and not politicians who should be given the opportunity to choose the school best suited to their child. That choice will be different from one child to another and from one parent to another. It is my task to see, in free and close collaboration with the local education authorities, that there is a variety of good and sufficient schools, in order that, as far as possible, the choice of parents is respected and the education best suited to their children is provided.
Later in this parliamentary Session I shall be introducing a further Education Bill in which the choice of parents and


the needs of their children will be a central feature. The present Bill is a first step on the road to greater freedom, greater choice and greater diversity and, I believe, higher standards in education. I invite the House to endorse the policy so recently endorsed by the public at the general election and to support the Bill.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: As I have previously said, although the Secretary of State and I are in many respects bitterly opposed in our political views, we are, and always have been, good constituency neighbours. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said about my appointment to the Privy Council. I am proud and honoured to be a member of the Privy Council and in this season of maiden speeches, Mr. Speaker, I suppose, in a way, that I am a maiden speaker as a Privy Councillor. However, I am not, and will not be, bound by the rule that maiden speakers are non-controversial.
I also thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I warmly welcome him to the Front Bench and hand the baton over to him. Indeed, it is not really handing over the baton—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is the hammer and sickle.

Mr. Oakes: —because, as you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, for some months I have been, as it were, a caretaker. I am now handing over the keys of the Shadow Cabinet job to its true holder. I can assure hon. Gentlemen on the Tory Benches—if they are taking any relief from that—that I may well pop up again somewhere else, in pastures new or revisited, to cause them some difficulty.
The Secretary of State reminds me that this is the second Education Bill to come before the House within six months. That is a rare event. The last Administration introduced an Education Bill and our roles were, roughly, reversed. Only a a few weeks ago I was in Committee on one side and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was on the other. That fact calls to mind the contrast between the two Bills. There is first of all a contrast in length. Our Bill contained 30 clauses.

This is a Bill of two clauses—one real clause and a defining clause.
Our Bill was an all-embracing measure that dealt with education from nursery school through to a major revision of the management of higher education. That Bill dealt with education problems that are as real for the Secretary of State as they were for us. For example, our Bill dealt with the question of the appointment of parent and teacher governors in schools and with the rights of parents' choice. It dealt with the very important and very urgent problem—urgent for the Secretary of State now, not in years to come—of the rapid decline in the numbers in secondary schools—a decline of 30 per cent. or in some instances as much as 40 per cent. These are the issues that our Bill dealt with when it was before the House.
It is reasonable to say that we got a fair degree of consensus in that Bill. It was not a bitterly antagonistic party-political Bill, and it was one in which I gave way many times because I wanted consensus. I wanted agreement that for at least the rest of the century we should have an all-party approach to some of these problems. We got very near to achieving that.
What is this Education Bill? I thought that the sterile battle was over, but instead of that we have a short, brutish, mean, two-clause Bill brought before the House by the Government. Why did not the Secretary of State include the non-controversial clauses of our Bill, which are just as urgent now as they were then? Why did he not add these clauses, or some of them, to this Bill? It is because the Secretary of State wanted to rush and steam-roller this Bill through the House for reasons that I shall speak of in a moment.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many parents, teachers and schoolchildren in my part of Greater London are delighted that this Bill has been brought forward so promptly? I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the promptness of his approach.

Mr. Oakes: I think that many people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would be even more delighted if some


of the major issues of present-day education were dealt with in this Bill, and not, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, in another Bill that might come later in the Session. Although the Leader of the House may be favourable to education, it is rare that education comes high in the pecking order. Therefore, some of the issues that the Government had the opportunity of dealing with in this Bill may not come within this Session of Parliament though the Secretary of State will have the opportunity of dealing with them later.
This is a short, mean Bill which, in education terms, expresses the whole philosophy of privilege for the few and hardship for the many. We heard that Tory economic philosophy discussed during our debates on the Budget. The Government must realise the harsh fact that this summer about 85 per cent. of our children are being educated within the comprehensive system. It is only the Conservative-controlled local authorities, or pockets and parts of other authorities, which do not adopt the comprehensive system. Therefore, this Bill is dealing with the preservation of a system of education that is not within the mainstream provisions of education in this country.
The Bill seeks not only to perpetuate this situation but as the Secretary of State, forthrightly, told us, in many respects to undermine the existing system of comprehensive education where it exists and is working well. I shall explain my thoughts on that issue later.
I shall not deal in this debate with the educational merits of comprehensive education. I firmly believe in those merits, but I shall not deal with them for two reasons. First, for the past 12 years this House, in the Chamber and in Committee, has discussed ad nauseam the advantages and disadvantages of comprehensive education. Secondly, and far more importantly, many of my hon. Friends, old and new, who have devoted a lifetime to education as teachers and headmasters, can deal with the educational advantages of comprehensive education more effectively than I can. I shall not delay the House in speaking on the issue.
I want to speak about the inescapable effects of this Bill, which, in those areas

where there is to be a dual system, will establish some form of selection, whether that selection is 20 per-cent. grammar school and 80 per cent. non-comprehensive secondary modern school, or 25 per cent. grammar school and 75 per cent. non-comprehensive secondary modern school. Under this system the rights of parents of the majority of children cannot be given any credence.
What has happened to the parents' charter that the Conservatives boast about? The parent of a pupil in a secondary modern school in one of the areas that I have described is denied the right to a choice of school because of the selection examination.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is putting very well the point that I put to the Secretary of State. Can my right hon. Friend reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to me?

Mr. Oakes: Selection is totally inconsistent with the sort of parental choice that we are talking about. Parents can choose between schools when the schools are of roughly the same kind. They can choose a school for the type of subject it provides or its moral ethos. But when selection is introduced, for the majority of parents in the area—not the minority—parental choice is dead. Therefore, I ask again "What has happened to the parents' charter? What has happened to parental choice?"
Only certain areas have the selective system, so that the other stark effect of the Bill is that in preserving them it is creating two nations geographically and, within the areas concerned, socially. What an authority insists on selection, the very fact that it does so means that it is in favour of and supports the grammar schools in the area.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be worrying about resources, not the subject of the Bill. It inevitably means a shortage of resources for secondary modern schools, because the kind of authority that insists on selection will take very good care to see that the grammar schools receive their whack of resources at the expense of other schools in the area. The position becomes worse and worse in matters of staff, buildings, playing fields and books, so that the schools become more and more socially divisive.

Mr. Barry Porter: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to give some evidence about those areas that are still selective. Presumably he can give the House figures to prove his point that more money is given to grammar schools than to secondary modern schools. That is certainly not true in the Wirral.

Mr. Oakes: If the hon. Gentleman goes to any authority in the country, looking to the past as well as the present, he will find that where selection lakes place the per capita amount spent in a grammar school is far higher than that spent in a secondary modern school.

Mr. David Young: If the Secretary of State has any doubt about my right hon. Friend's statement, I invite him to visit Bolton and see the deprivation in certain of the schools that my constituents have to attend compared with some of the other schools that are now being transferred back to the former system.

Mr. Oakes: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will visit Bolton. It is not often that giving way fortuitously leads one straight on to the point that one was about to deal with. It is not the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) raised, but it concerns Bolton.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government had a mandate for a Bill of this kind, given by the people at the last election. Let the House look a little more carefully and closely at that claim. I shall deal first with Bolton, a town for which I have a great deal of affection because it was the town that first returned me to the House. It subsequently had a little error of judgment in 1970, but I have forgiven it for that, and I still have a good deal of affection for my hon. Friend's constituency.
The education system in Bolton, where the Conservative-controlled council has tried to retain the selective system, is truly chaotic. In the centre of Bolton, in the old county borough, the old system was retained, there is still the selective process, and there are still grammar schools. In the outer areas of Bolton, inherited from the much more enlightened Lancashire County Council, the compre

hensive schools were inherited. The matter is even more complicated, in that the voluntary schools, in the Roman Catholic sector, have now decided that they wish, despite what Bolton wishes, to go comprehensive. With this mixture, the local authority has still fought hard for selection.
What happened in Bolton, one of the key towns? At the last parliamentary election it had two of the most marginal seats in the country—seats that the Conservatives certainly expected to win. I am glad and proud to see my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, East and Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) both here. That is what happened to the parliamentary seats in that hotbed of controversy over selection. In the local elections there was a truly astonishing result, with 10 Labour gains from the Conservatives. The result is that there is now a Conservative majority of one on the Bolton council. In view of the recent Budget, assuredly next year there will be a tidal wave instead of the usual backlash against an existing Government, and the position will be altered.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of the grammar schools is a very live issue in Lancashire? Mine was supposed to be a marginal seat, but I managed to treble my majority. Was the right hon. Gentleman referring to per capita expenditure per annum, or capital expenditure? The capital expenditure on Lancaster grammar school has been miniscule over the years.

Mr. Oakes: I said "per capita expenditure".
I move on to another town, this time across the county border. In Kirklees selection was again an issue. The former Secretary of State, Mrs. Williams, had initiated legal proceedings against Kirklees. There were 17 Labour gains on Kirklees council, in yet another hotbed of controversy over selection.
What happened at Tameside, that bloody battleground of comprehensive education? In 1978 we made three gains, including the seat of the then Leader of the Conservative education group. This time we consolidated the position, with


10 more Labour gains, giving us control of the council.
When Conservative Members talk about a mandate on this issue, I cite those three areas in the North of England, where clearly there is no evidence in the polls that they have any such mandate.
Having mentioned Tameside I cannot resist telling the Secretary of State, who is a learned Gentleman as well as a right hon. Gentleman, that when Tameside puts in new proposals he should remember that the decision in the High Court, which Conservative Members greeted with such glee, is a decision that the local authority shall prevail over the judgment of the Secretary of State. That is a ghost that will remain if the right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to overturn the views of future Labour councils that wish to go comprehensive.
So much for the mandate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about. I now turn to a few details of the Bill, short though it is. First, the very beginning repeals section 1 of the 1976 Act, which sets out the comprehensive principle. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman need to do that? If he were merely setting the local authorities free, it would be fair enough for him to say "We shall repeal section 2 and section 3"—the compulsion by the statute that the local authority shall go comprehensive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman need not have denied the comprehensive principle.
What is the effect of the Bill? If Parliament revokes the comprehensive principle, there will be a void, or another principle will go in its place. Presumably the principle that will take its place will be selection. If that is so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has created a rod to beat his own back and the backs of his friends in local authorities, including the Cheshire local authority.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is creating the machinery and the means for backwoodsmen and extremists in Conservative-controlled councils to say "We may have an effective system of comprehensive education in the county, but there is no statutory authority for it. Indeed, Parliament has ruled against it. Let us change it" Such extremists in Cheshire have been stoutly and valiantly resisted by the Conservative chairman of the edu

cation committee, who was my opponent during a previous election. He fought off the challenge vigorously, but there will be further challenges, because the Conservative Government are trying to over-egg the pudding by repealing not only sections 2 and 3 of the 1976 Act but, in an excess of zeal, section 1, which embodies the comprehensive principle.

Mr. Carlisle: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that we can repeal sections 2 and 3 without repealing section 1? Section 1 refers to secondary education and states that
local education authorities shall … have regard to the principle that such education is to be provided only in schools … not based (wholly or partly) on selection.
The section removes the right of any local authority to have other than comprehensive schools.

Mr. Oakes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman need not have removed the section; he could have attempted to amend it. However, his action has given the impression to many, especially those in the Conservative Party, that Parliament has overturned the principle of comprehensive education and that in doing so either there will be a void or something else will be put in its place, namely, the principle of selection. I do not believe that the Conservative Party, or the House as a whole, wants that to happen. In many authorities, including Conservative-controlled authorities, comprehensive education exists and is working well. It is in many instances acceptable to the ruling Conservative Party.
I turn to the transitional provisions. Enormous powers are given to the Secretary of State. It appears that after approval has been given under the section 13(4) procedure it will be within the power of the Secretary of State, on the application of the authority concerned, to overturn that approval.
We are dealing not only with the 1976 Act. I appreciate that Conservative Members detest that Act. The provisions of section 13(4) are to be found in the 1944 Act—an Act respected by both sides of the House. What is the procedure under that Act? It is one that involves notices. It is a procedure that deals with consultation. It is not a rubber-stamping procedure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to say—it


has always been the position of successive Secretaries of State in Labour and Conservative Governments—that the most careful consideration is given to proposals that come within that subsection.
The Bill provides that even if the procedure has been followed, and even if a Secretary of State has given approval, the Secretary of State in office, on the application of the authority, can overturn the earlier approval. That smacks of retrospective legislation. It smacks of a complete disregard of the wishes of the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman presumed to talk about the wishes of parents but in fact he was talking about the wishes of the authority concerned.
If the Conservative Party is so concerned with parents, as it pretends to be, why is it that in the whole of this measure the word "parent" never appears? Why is it that the word "teacher" never appears? The Secretary of State will have power to overturn, on the application of the authority, without going to the parents or the teachers of the authority. He is arrogating unto himself powers to deny what a previous Secretary of State has done.
I return to the "King Charles's head" of an authority such as Tameside. Let us suppose that a previous Secretary of State has approved arrangements under section 13(4), the current Conservative-controlled council opts to renege, and a subsequent Labour-controlled council submits to the Secretary of State proposals that have already been approved by a previous Secretary of State. That will result in a lovely legal tangle. That is not an idle prediction. That is likely to happen. I predict that it will happen in many authorities if the Bill is enacted as it stands.
In clause 1(4) we find the words "or governors concerned". I take that to mean the difference between voluntary schools and local authority maintained schools. If it does, I am content.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): It does.

Mr. Oakes: If it were to mean that either the governors or local education authority could go to the Secretary of State, I should violently disagree. That

would be setting one against the other. I am satisfied on that minor issue.
Clause 1(4) provides that when public notice of proposals has been given by the authority concerned they
shall continue to be treated as if they had been submitted to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) or (2)".
That shifts the onus entirely on to the local education authority to elect whether it will continue. That is monstrous. The local education authority will have decided to publish the notices but the Bill will make the authority elect whether it wishes to continue, and to make that election before the magic date of 1 October 1979.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be missing the point that both subsections apply only to instances where the original proposal has been submitted as a result of a direction given by the previous Minister under section 2 of the 1976 Act. Before subsection (4) comes into being it must be clear that the local authority was acting not voluntarily but in compliance with requirements made against its wishes by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Oakes: I am well aware of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. It seems that he is disputing that in the circumstances to which I have referred local authorities were acting under the law of the land as laid down by Parliament. It seems that he is disputing that such authorities obeyed the law of the land at the time. The notices have been published, but the Government will seek to force authorities to elect whether they wish to continue.
I turn to the magic date of 1 October 1979. It may be that the Under-Secretary of State will explain where it comes from, what is magical about it, and from where it was plucked. Let us consider it in terms of the Bill's timetable in the House. We are nearing the end of June. The Bill will go into Committee. It will have to complete its passage in Committee before being returned to the House. It will go to another place, and it may be returned from another place. There is a possibility that the Bill will not become law before 1 October 1979. By that time local authorities must make their election.
Again I ask, what is the magic of 1 October—except the strong possibility


that this Bill will not have completed its stages and receive the Royal Assent by the date on which local authorities must make their election?
Suppose the Secretary of State is lucky and the Bill receives the Royal Assent by the end of July? Does he realise what he is doing to local authorities? Of course he does. Local authorities normally do not meet in August. Everybody is on holiday. The education committee has to meet in September and consult governors and have its decisions approved by the full council. This date has been chosen to prevent authorities from making an election to continue with the proposals that they put forward.
After three years in the Department of Education and Science, I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot treat local authorities, Labour or Conservative, like that. They do not like it one little bit. They like to be given their own time, and proper time, to make their decisions democratically in the committees and not to be harassed by the imposition of a particular date.
This is a bad Bill. It is bad for local education authorities in that the misery of indecision has been prolonged, and because some Conservative councils which have comprehensive education will be harassed by extremists because of the revocation of section 1 of the 1976 Act. It is bad for parents, because they will have not only the miseries of the 11-plus decision for their children but the uncertainty about whether the local authority's political control will change. It is particularly bad for teachers, who will be constrained, without any consultation, to conform to a system that they may consider alien to the educational development of their pupils.
I should like to explain why I feel so contemptuous of this squalid and venomous little Bill. In order to pander to the prejudices, not even of the whole of the Conservative Party, by any means, but of vociferous pockets of reactionary backwoodsmen, the Government are prepared to perpetuate the torture of the 11-plus rat-race for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of children—in this of all years, the Year of the Child. That is particularly detestable.
I accept that the Secretary of State will have might on his side in the Lobby to-

night, but we shall have right on ours. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends unanimously to vote down this squalid little Bill.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My family is present today so I hope that I shall not be thought discourteous if I leave shortly after speaking to look after them for a short time. They include a number of young children. I hope that the House will understand.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is present, because he will be associated with much of what I say about the London borough of Ealing.
In making my maiden speech I am conscious of the record in the House of my predecessor, Bill Molloy, who will be remembered by everyone as a man of warm heart who had a deep and genuine love of Parliament and its institutions. I am pleased and honoured to pay tribute to what he did in the House and the constituency.
The constituency of Ealing, North has come together from a collection of small communities, formerly villages, and has considerable cohesion and drive. Much local employment is provided by private industry, and the citizens of the constituency have had prosperity which is acceptable to most. However, in recent years we have been depressed with the movement away of industry and the transformation of many industrial premises into warehouses. That is a trend which I hope and believe will be reversed under this Government. The London borough of Ealing is well and widely known as the "Queen of the Suburbs" and rightly so. I am proud to be associated with it.
I am interested in the Bill because I wish to speak about two related subjects—comprehensive schools and values in society and schools. I have had the honour to serve in purpose-built comprehensive schools for 20 years. I count myself a proud and happy member of the greatest profession of all—the teaching profession. I have held every kind of post in comprehensive schools, from the pastoral side to the academic side. The last seven years I spent at the top end of a purpose-built mixed comprehensive


of more than 2,000 pupils. I therefore feel that I have some inside contribution to make to the House.
There are supporters of the comprehensive principle in all parties. It does not do for Labour Party members to suggest that they are the only ones who have supported the principle. I am not setting out to be controversial, but, as a professional in schools for over 20 years now, I have been dogged by the doctrinaire approach of the Labour Party on his issue. Labour Members have done us in the schools no favour—I do not think that they realise that—in the way that they have oversold them and raised public expectations to the point of impossibility saying that every child in them will have a grammar school education. That is not possible, nor is it desirable.
In a good comprehensive school every child has an education commensurate with his ability and aptitudes. The tragedy is that not all comprehensive schools are as good as the best, and it does not do to pretend that they are.
As a principle the comprehensive principle is exciting and challenging and I have been excited and challenged to work with it over all these years. I am happy to attempt to persuade those in my party and people outside that the principle is a worthy one, but we must remember that it is difficult. We should not simplify the job that faces heads and staffs in running these schools successfully. When I listen to education debates I sometimes wonder whether schools and children are in the minds of those taking part.
Because of the constant furore, standards have not been discussed in the calm atmosphere that is needed both in schools and in politics. In the end, what matters to children, to parents, to teachers—in terms of job satisfaction, and so on—and to the country's future is that children achieve high standards in work, attendance and behaviour. Discussions along these lines have not been held in the sound atmosphere that we need because of the pressure from the Labour Party towards a unitary system of secondary education.
Tragically, some parents lack confidence in comprehensive schools. It does not help anyone to pretend that that is not

so. Many have full confidence in these schools. A good school—my own, with a 12-form entry, is oversubscribed and very successful—can establish itself and command the confidence of the community, the children and the staff associated with it. But others do not, and it does not help to say that they are all good and that the country should therefore be forced into a unitary system simply on principle. By their results and deeds, we shall know them. That is the way in which the public judge them. We must obtain wider parental confidence than there is now.
Teachers are in an impossible position. Many of them have been pressurised by some teacher unions into supporting systems with which they were not wholly in sympathy. What is needed is evolution in education. We do not need the educational revolution that has been proposed by the Labour Party for so many years.
We must move to a situation of "live and let live" Yesterday I spoke to comprehensive school teachers and heads and to the heads of independent grammar schools. We agreed that we desperately needed from politicians and others involved a period of live and let live, with no pressure to go one way or the other. We must take a path that gives choice of type of school to parents. "Choice" is not a dirty word. It is not wrong to have choice of school—even though it is not open to everybody. It is nonsense to say that there can be no choice because there is not total choice.
This is the danger. Some have argued that there could not be a choice of curricula in schools. Many schools have been pressed to offer a single curriculum for all children regardless of ability. For the past 10 or 15 years there has been a tremendous battle to continue to give a choice of courses for all children. If a choice of course and curriculum does not mean the full implementation of the comprehensive principle, I do not know what does. That principle has been forgotten by many Labour authorities and schools have been damaged.
I come to the lack of values in some of our young. We must teach Christian values in schools. I make no compromise. Pupils may be free to accept or reject those values, but we must offer


them. That does not happen in all schools. Indeed, in far too many it is not happening at all. Most successful schools are based on the Christian ethos. Even in multiracial schools there is no harm in such a foundation. Indeed, it is a dereliction of our moral responsibility not to teach our own national values and culture which are based upon Christendom. Let us remember that. However, we must pay attention to and teach world religions for the benefit of the ethnic minorities.
It is further argued that we should not teach moral or Christian values as some groups in schools do not subscribe to them and that we must therefore not teach them. This is the way to vacuous minds, vandalism and hooliganism. That is where we have gone wrong.
I hope that the Secretary of State will support the proposal of the London borough of Ealing to establish a new Church of England high school. In Ealing there are five Church of England first schools and two middle schools. However, there is no high school. The Conservative majority on the borough council was elected on a mandate to establish a Church of England high school. Support for this by the Secretary of State, in concert with the London borough of Ealing, would show Government support for denominational schools and Christian education.
I do not say that maintained non-denominational schools should be forgotten. I have worked only in such schools. We neglect the teaching of moral values in them at our peril. I have always concentrated on that aspect from positions of leadership in schools. There is a need to see that religious studies courses are available in all maintained, denominational and other schools. In far too many schools such courses are not available. We must ensure that there are proper religious studies departments. This is an area in which we need to work much harder.
Education is a process. It is not an end in itself. Education is a steady process, taking children from an early age to maturity, influencing them, helping them and enabling them to learn and study. Thomas Arnold, the great headmaster of Rugby, said:

My object will be, if possible, to form Christian men, for Christian boys I can scarcely hope to make.
What he meant was clear.
May I throw into the maelstrom one or two snippets about areas in which I think money could be saved in education? I appeal to the Secretary of State to suspend the operation of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in schools. It is an Act which involves local education authorities in high expense. I have attempted to operate it. It is not geared to schools. It costs a great deal of money which should otherwise be used for books and teachers. That should be done immediately. Secondly, will the Secretary of State consider doing something about the impossibly stringent and costly fire regulations that are imposed upon all schools? Those regulations and their enforcement also divert resources from books and educational materials. That is where we want the money. Finally, I appeal to him to amend the disastrous Children and Young Persons Act 1969 as soon as possible.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: It is a great privilege to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). He began, very properly, with a tribute to William Molloy, who won great respect and admiration on both sides of the House. He was a persistent Member of Parliament for the Ealing, North constituency. I am sure that the House appreciates the tribute paid by the hon. Gentleman. We are glad that there is now a Government supporter with great experience of comprehensive education. As he has been a practising teacher for so long, that is of great advantage. We look forward to his participating in our debates, especially those on education.
I welcome this opportunity of being freed from the burdens of office and therefore being able to speak from the Back Benches on my favourite topic.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on his achievement. We in the Labour Party have undervalued the contribution that education has to make to the society that we want. I have always been a fervent believer in education. The hon. Member for Ealing, North mentioned values. In a way they are more important than acad


emic learning, which is over-valued in some parts of our education service. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty shares my expectations of the good society. Education has a vital role to play. The man who taught me in the closely-knit Socialist community in which I was privileged to grow up put service to the community before the accumulation of material goods when he referred to success.
I have one complaint about the Government's strategy, of which this Bill is a part. They say "Let people stand on their own feet". What they mean is "Reinforce the strong and let the rest take their proper positions in society". I want a growing community in which everybody feels that he belongs. I am sorry to say that our education service is more divisive than ever before. At one time we had social selection. Then, with our partisan encouragement, it became academic selection. That was an important step forward. But most of us are now beginning to realise that the academic yardstick is not sufficient if we are talking about equality of opportunity and what education does.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty because I regard his portfolio as one of the most important in politics, let us make no mistake about that. We concentrate far too much on publishing blueprints for economic miracles and changes in our economic and industrial structure, and so on, and neglect, at our peril, what the education service can do by way of creating a good community.
When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, I naturally went back to the original debate of 1976. In a speech that was a model of brevity the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we were not discussing the principle of comprehensive education because in a way that had been decided. With respect, we are discussing it because the Bill sets the clock back. We are bound to discuss comprehensive education.
I turn to two aspects of the Bill that I wish to discuss. First, there is the uncertainty created by the Bill. The Undersecretary of State is always reminding us of what is so important in the education service—teacher morale and teacher certainty about the continuity of the educa

tion process. This is a revival of the argument that has been settled. It is dead. The Conservative Party dare not say to the country "We believe in selection at 11-plus." It is time it stopped saying "We are against selection but we want to retain selective schools." That is nonsense.
Sooner or later the Secretary of State will have to make up his mind where he stands on the comprehensive principle. I was a teacher before the war, and comprehensive education was being discussed then. It has now come back into the political arena and has once more become a political football. I do not underestimate the effect of this Bill on teacher morale. The truth is that the reorganisation of schools is no longer an issue.
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons, in the discussion on the Education Bill 1976, said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley):
Parents are concerned not with how schools are organised but with how their children are taught."—[Official Report, 4 February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 1234.]
The Secretary of State said much the same thing this afternoon, yet here we have this controversial, reactionary Bill to deal with reorganisation.
The second matter that I wish to discuss is my concern over the balance between central and local government. I am a local government man. As well as being a schoolmaster, I was privileged to be the chairman of an education authority. In those days I thought that central Government had far too much power. However, when I went to the Department—one of the most privileged periods of my life—at Elizabeth House, I was constantly reminded of the power of local authority. There is a delicate balance which I recognise and which I believe it is valuable to maintain. The way in which we organise our education system has no equal. I am, therefore, a supporter of that delicate balance.
With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in this Bill he is abdicating his responsibility, and I shall say why. We must have a framework of national policy which enables the educational ideas in which we believe to be


implemented in schools and allows local authorities to carry out their statutory duties. This does not mean dull uniformity or rigidity. When anyone talks to me about rigidity, dull uniformity and central Government compulsion, I wonder where he has been during the past 25 years. We must have a national policy which enables local authorities to get the best possible return from the allocation of resources and at the same time meet the real needs of the children for whom they have statutory responsibility.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Park introduced the Bill in February 1976, he said that its object was to give effect to Government policy on comprehensive education. When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate will he explain the Government's policy on secondary education and on reorganisation? Is it just to say to local authorities "Do what you like? What you determine we shall approve", or do the Government have a policy?
I remember the remarkable circular 10/65, issued by Tony Crosland. He was criticised by some of my colleagues, and I was not too happy about the tremendous range of possibilities that he set out for reorganising secondary education. There were six choices. If proof is required that it was not rigid, the Under-Secretary of State is a perfect example, as he was the head of a comprehensive school. Was there any time when he felt inhibited about implementing the policy of education in which he believed? Of course not. Was there any time when the Government said "We have passed a Bill in favour of comprehensive education. You must stop doing this, you must do that and this is outlawed"? Of course not.
The hon. Gentleman is on record as saying that he believed in the extension of comprehensive education. He went on to say that he wanted comprehensive schools to strengthen the academic tradition of grammar and public schools and to offer that type of education to an increasing percentage of the school population. That is arguable. I differ from him on that in some respects, but that is not for debate today. The hon. Gentleman was able to pursue that view of education despite the Government's judgment, given to the country, that they believed in the comprehensive principle.
The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. It is his duty, at Elizabeth House, to formulate policy and to say that the Government either do or do not believe in selection. Either the Government believe in reorganising secondary education on the comprehensive principle or they do not. If they do not, we can argue about it. At the moment, however, every speech made by every Tory spokesman on education indicates that the Government are not against comprehensives but want to retain selective schools.
In Britain no two schools are alike. One of the joys of being in the Department of Education and Science was that I was able to visit schools all over the country. I have not yet seen a school where children do exactly as they like. Those who report that that is so in the popular press do not know what they are talking about. There are no schools where children do exactly what they like. More schools follow the tradition of maintaining discipline such as that followed in the school of which the Under-Secretary of State was a headmaster than do not. There are more traditional schools than there are so-called free-for-all schools.
In our comprehensive schools today we have some mixed ability teaching and in others the children are streamed more rigidly than in the grammar school that I attended. Most schools in this country give an academic pecking order. I am against it, but it happens. No local authority or central Government spokesman can stop it happening. Some schools place greater emphasis on vocational subjects, and so on.
What I am saying is that it is the attitude of the head and of the teachers that matters. I do not want to see politicians being able to say "You will not teach in this way or in that way." Certainly no Bill that the Labour Government brought forward, no legislation that we enacted, no circular that we sent out, ever suggested that that would be so.
The truth is that as a Minister in the Department of Education and Science, from the Government Front Bench or from the Opposition Back Benches, or as the chairman of a local authority—in which office I had much more power than ever I had at the DES or in this House—one cannot go into a school and say "This is the way in which you will teach and this is what you will teach." I was


a headmaster, too. When I think back, the power of the headmaster sometimes frightens me.
The suggestion that comprehensive education is in some way a Marxist plot is the biggest bit of nonsense that I have heard. If it were so I would not be part of it. But we must go back a bit. The development of comprehensive schools was a natural response to the unfairness, inaccuracies and sheer waste of time which the old secondary system imposed on the education service. The social change that was brought about by the Second World War ensured that the education service had to be subjected to radical change. Before 1939 fewer children went to secondary school than now go on to higher and further education. Parents would not tolerate in any way a return to the selective system that can now be imposed by local authorities in various parts of the country.
The 1944 Act made fundamental changes to the basic framework of the education service and to the organisation of our schools. No one said that local authorities could retain the old elementary school. It had to go. Fundamental changes were laid down. No one said that Lord Butler was dictating to local authorities and to the country—of course not.
Today a small number of authorities are standing out against the comprehensive principle. At a time when the education service is under greater pressure than it has ever been under in my lifetime, the Government bring in a Bill to give freedom to the backwoodsmen. What happened at Tameside should surely be a lesson to all of us about the balance between local authorities and central Government. We have had the position in Bolton brought to our attention. Everyone knows that the old tripartite system is not acceptable any longer and, indeed, is not working.
Our education service is still far too divisive. Last night I was browsing in the Library, looking into the division in our education service. I was looking at the "Guide to the House of Commons", produced by The Times. Unfortunately, the new book has not been published yet, so one is not able to do an analysis of new Members.

Mr. David Young: It is even worse.

Mr. Armstrong: Yes. In the October 1974 intake there were 205 products of the public school. Some of them are my friends. I am not making personal or political attacks; I am talking about the unrepresentative nature of our institutions, of industry and of the corridors of power, because of the failures of the education system and particularly its divisive elements.
I was amazed to find that 246 Members of Parliament had been to Oxbridge. As I have told my constituents, we have the most intelligent establishment in the world, judged on IQ, and so on—although many of us do not take too much notice of so-called IQs.
This shows that we are less representative of the experiences outside the House of the normal people who we are always telling what to do and what not to do. We try to discover what motivates them to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and to improve their performance—and I certainly do not accept that tax incentives is the way to do it. But the House is less representative of the nation now than it was in 1945, when we had a much bigger representation of people from the workshop, the field, the factory and so on than we have now. That is because our education system works in that particular way, so it is divisive.
Equality of opportunity is not giving all children a chance to contract into the rat-race. That is one of the problems. There are many children who, far from dropping out—and the reasons why they drop out are manifold; some drop out because they were labelled far too early in life and accepted the label—have never dropped in. They have never had the opportunity to compete on fair terms. That will continue so long as we overstress—I know that the Under-Secretary holds these views strongly—academic ability as the sole criterion of whether a child ought to have further education, and so on. We must give far more scope to other talents which are just as important in the life of the nation as academic talent.
The whole philosophy of the present Government, in the Budget and everything else, is to see life as a competition. In education, competition has mean that the winners—the minority—have had the


lion's share of resources. Perhaps the worst feature is that very often they have had the best teachers. As hon. Members know, that depends very often on the head, in his allocation of staff, and so on. The rest have had what we call a limited education.
In his opposition to the Labour Bill, I was interested to note that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that most parents wanted for their children an education that was basic and simple. My goodness, that has been the philosophy of the Conservative Party down the years—something that is basic and simple, which will fit young people for the jobs that the Conservatives want them to do in our society.
Although the three Rs are important, children need far more than that. They need a much broader curriculum. The Secretary of State must face up to his responsibilities. We hear so much now about microchips and the technological revolution, and so on. The other day I was reading a report which said that in 15 years' time 10 per cent. of the work force will be able to provide more than we need in the way of resources. That forecast may be hopelessly wrong, but if it is 50 per cent. instead of 10 per cent., or 60 per cent., what a problem it will be in terms of education in the proper use of our time and the need to share our resources instead of fighting each other for them, and so on. The education service has a great contribution to make.
The only alternative to selection is a system of non-selective or all-in comprehensive secondary schools. One cannot have both. From the Government Front Bench we are owed the Government's judgment on the question whether they are in favour of selection or of the comprehensive system and the comprehensive principle. Where do the Government stand?
Their present policy would permit gross inequalities of educational provision in different localities. Let us suppose that a local authority wants to build a single-sex grammar school, perhaps because the controlling party on the authority is looking ahead and thinks that it will be out of control, and it wants to convert a school operating at present into a single-sex grammar school. What kind of criteria

would the Secretary of State use? In three years' time there might be a change in political control. Are we suggesting that that kind of thing can be allowed in our education service? Tameside should be a reminder.
I feel so strongly about these matters that whenever I speak I try to correct some of the things that we have done wrong in the past. I never again hope to hear from Labour Members that we want grammar schools for all. For some children grammar schools can be inhibiting and prevent their natural growth. We do not need a grammar school education for every child but the kind of education that will help each child realise its full potential.
Although it is not party policy, I believe in neighbourhood schools. I have watched them in other parts of the country and tried to operate them myself. It is nonsense to try to achieve a social mix—whatever that may mean—by bussing children about the countryside and tinkering with catchment areas. I grew up in a West Durham mining village. The worst thing that happens to me when I go abroad is to be invited to the ballet. It is sheer torture. I do not boast about that. Looking back, it could be said that I was deprived because I did not have access to the theatre, classical music or the ballet. I had a community life in a closely-knit mining community where the warmth, fellowship and open-door policy more than compensated for the deprivations of certain cultural pursuits.
Where we have a "sink" school—I never use that term unless I am repeating what others have said—the remedy is good staffing and putting in extra resources, which can be said to be positive discrimination. The school becomes the focal centre of the community. Communities have sufficient culture and drive. They do not want leaders implanted from outside. They want men and women to lead them who have grown up with them and gone to the local school. I am a neighbourhood school man.
In conclusion—I say this particularly to the Government Front Bench—Britain cannot and will not solve its problems by rewarding the so-called successful, strong and privileged at the expense of the mass of our people. We must recognise the


worth and dignity of every human being—low-paid dustmen, bricklayers, those who work with their hands and those with no incentive to continue the education progress in later life.
This Bill puts the clock back. It is divisive, it attacks the comprehensive principle and revives an argument that has long since been settled by everyone who has an inkling of what real education is about. I support my right hon. and hon. Friends in opposing it lock, stock and barrel.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Kiribati Act 1979

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I wish that I had made my maiden speech before that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Green-way). He delivered his speech so ably that he has made me feel nervous. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science for the clear way in which he opened the debate.
I am told that my accent makes it clear that I represent a Yorkshire seat. Sowerby is set in the mid-Pennines and stretches from the Lancashire border to the heart of Yorkshire. It has its regulation quota of historic landmarks—Saxon camps, Roman roads and civil war battlegrounds—but to the ever-increasing number of tourists who visit our beautiful valleys the area seems to epitomise the more rugged aspects of the Industrial Revolution. Here stone-built factories, canals, railways, chapels and schools are surrounded by well-farmed and beautiful hills, capped by wild moors.
Not all the mills now spin and weave, although many still do. Dozens of them

house new industries and are supplemented with new factories and workshops. There are no huge firms in Sowerby. Even the internationally known ones employ no more than 400 or 500 people. However, the products that are manufactured are known worldwide. They include fire extinguishers, trousers, raincoats—and one may find a non-controversial abandoned Gannex raincoat in the Members' cloakroom—wire, machine tools, motor car components, manmade fibres and all possible types of cloth. A multitude of goods are produced from these small firms, not on huge industrial estates, but in the old mill towns.
Sowerby has always been politically aware, as one would expect in a place where the River Ludd still runs. Every election from parish to parliamentary, is keenly fought. My two predecessors did particularly well to hang on to the seat for more than 30 years. Many right hon. and hon. Members will remember Douglas Houghton who was the Member for over 25 years and is now rightly regarded by all with great affection He now sits in another place as Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the teachers' pet.
Douglas Houghton was followed by Mr. Madden, whose example of hard work and concern I shall do my best to follow. It was during Mr. Madden's time that the previous Parliament cajoled, pulled and pushed the local authority into reshaping the last two grammar schools in Sowerby and bringing them into the comprehensive system.
At that time I was chairman of the local education authority. I hope that Labour chairmen of Labour housing authorities will pay as much regard to the law when it becomes law as we had to only a few years ago. It is the responsibility of local government in Calderdale to make up its mind whether it wishes to remain within the comprehensive system. Either way it will have to find vast amounts of cash, whether to perfect the comprehensive system started 18 months ago or to revert to the old ways despite the many millions of pounds that have been spent.
Too often in the past the enterprise of comprehensive education has been set upon without cash or buildings and, most seriously, without hope of any improvement in the standard of education. The local authority now has or will have the


right of self-determination. Local education authorities are more able to do things properly and rightly than are appointed health authorities, whose actions often seem to be nothing less than disgraceful.
As the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) said, having given local authorities those rights, perhaps there will be scope for a further Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman were here I would remind him that Kirklees became a Labour seat during the last election for the first time in 40 years. There may be scope for a further Bill that will give people the right to spend their money as they please and to spend that money on education if they wish. People spend a great deal of their money on education—pre-school play groups, correspondence courses, the Open university, non-vocational classes, and of course private schools.
People like the right to send their children to aided schools, and people in Sowerby are glad that this Government will actively support that right. They like the right to educate their handicapped and special children nearer at hand and not to have them transferred many miles away merely as a matter of regional convenience or budgetary consideration. Also, they like the right to look after their own immigrant children in the immigrant community. For years the people of the West Riding have been most tolerant, understanding and generous to immigrant groups, and as a result they rightly resent the inept experts of the race relations industry telling them how to do a job that they have done very well for many years.
The people of Sowerby seek two further rights. First, they would like the right to remove headmasters and teachers who do not teach their children properly or encourage their children to reach acceptable standards. Secondly, they would like the responsibilities of school meals, school transport and social work taken out of education budgets so that the proper amount of money can be spent on the real job of education. This Bill makes a start, but we all hope to see more.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. David Young: I think that it is appropriate that a Member from Lancashire should rise after a Member from Yorkshire. I extend my good wishes to the hon. Member for Sowerby

(Mr. Thompson) and thank him for the compliments that he paid to his predecessors. We look forward to hearing from him again in the House.
In 1976, when I voted for the Act to make education comprehensive I did so not from political dogma and not because I wanted conformity, but because, as a teacher, I believed that that was a way to provide the opportunity for children in our society.
One of the issues that led to my return to this House—against all the power of television and against all the prophecies of the present Government—was the fact that the people of Bolton had become heartily sick of their children being used as political pawns. Many people, including most of my constituents, accepted that when that Act was passed in 1976 the system of education in Bolton would become comprehensive. They believed, as I did, that, given the resources and given the political will of the local authority, we could have produced an educational system equal to anything that could be provided in England.
Unfortunately, now we find that Bolton is a divided area. The Churches have reorganised their schools on comprehensive lines, and much of the present district that was included in reorganisation is also reorganised on comprehensive lines. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister accepts my invitation to come to Bolton he will indicate why, if the children in my division are attending the local authority school, they will be deprived of parental choice if they wish to select a comprehensive school.
I could have understood that if, when the 1976 Act was passed, the local authority had opposed it. Far from opposing it, the authority indicated that that was the law and that it would obey it. It went even further than that. It appointed II heads to the prospective comprehensive schools. I am not a little confused because if my local authority, as it has indicated, reverts to a selective system for a small section of Bolton district, and if a head is then allocated to a school of smaller designation in financial terms than the one to which he was appointed originally, who will make up the difference in finance? I assume that the 11 heads have signed binding contracts. I assume also that no pressure will be brought upon


them to revert from that position. I hope that the Minister will let me know the answer.
I admit that most of my information has come from the press and that one must check that. When I tried to check it I still found myself rather confused. I was told that the lawyers said one thing, but there would be a meeting in a week or two to sort the matter out. Either a contract is binding or it is not. If it is binding it means that the money agreed to be paid must be paid. I ask for a little clarification on that point as well as on the one of parental choice. What happens if the parents in by division opt for a comprehensive school rather than a school allocated under the 11-plus selection, which I am told the local authority is rushing through with undue haste?
The other point that I wish to raise is the question of two schools in my area. These are Castle Hill for boys and girls, and Tonge high school. When we proposed comprehensive education, and when the local authority accepted that plan these schools were offered £1·5 million. With a sudden change of mind the local authority not only decided to hold back on its own plan—and I emphasise its own plan—for changing Bolton to comprehensive education but at a stroke it got rid of the £1·5 million allocated to these schools. I should like the Minister to visit those two schools. I should like him to indicate how many of his councillors send their children to these schools. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether he considers that there should be equality of treatment for all children and whether the facilities available in those schools match those of the other schools in Bolton.
Conservatives have been in control in Bolton since reorganisation. We should like to know what will be done about these schools with dedicated staff. What resources are offered to the children in Castle Hill and Tonge high schools? I am particularly concerned about Tonge high school because I am informed that woodwork benches have to be purchased secondhand from other schools. The physics laboratory at that school also gives me cause for concern. I should like to conduct the Minister around the school if he wishes to visit Bolton.
Leaving aside the arguments for or against the concept of comprehensive education, there must be equality in the distribution of resources to all children and all schools in Bolton. I hope that the Minister will direct his attention to these matters.
The only way to resolve the difficulties in Bolton is to pursue the Labour Government's policy and move towards comprehensive schools. I do not believe that comprehensive schooling can co-exist with selection. The two contradictions in terms that affect the disadvantaged child—not through lack of ability but because of lack of environmental advantages and opportunity—are the challenges of today.
I shall oppose the Bill in the Lobby because I believe that it will negate all the steps that were taken during the Labour Government's period of office to remedy the difficulties that are faced by hundreds of my constituents.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not follow him into the byways and bylanes of his constituency. However none of us can complain at his doing so. Nor can we complain at his understandable pleasure at finding himself in this place—apparently, somewhat unexpectedly. He must have felt like a man who has prepared himself for the next world and made all his confessions, only to find himself in the agreeable position of being dragged back to go on sinning. I hope that he will enjoy his stay in the House while it lasts.
I am the first Conservative Back Bencher to speak after two remarkable Conservative maiden speeches. Both speeches were referred to in typically courteous terms by the Labour Members who immediately followed them. However, I should like to say what an enormous pleasure and a great strength it is to have my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) taking part in debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North is well known in Conservative Party education circles. He played a leading part in its education reorganisation.
I have had the pleasure of knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby for many years—we first met through an


education link. I am told that he has an almost inexhaustible supply of good stories for after-dinner speeches. A large number of those stories are perfectly satisfactory for mixed company. In that respect he is similar to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), although I suspect that the suitability of the latter's stories for mixed company is more in doubt. Nevertheless, they are always enjoyable.
I shall be voting for the Bill without any reservation or doubt. Where the comprehensive principle is concerned my views do not always receive 100 per cent. approval within the ranks of the Tory Party, but I have no doubts about the Bill. I wonder whether the Labour Party realises the damage that it has caused to the concept of the comprehensive principle by making it compulsory. I was interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, a former chairman of a local education authority, on the matter.
I believe that immense harm and damage was caused by the unnecessary compulsion. I am one of many who, given the proper background to the circumstances and correct preparation, believe that the wider opportunity and commitment and greater choice of subjects available in comprehensive schools are preferable to the selective system. It was made infinitely more difficult to argue that case once the matter became compulsory. I believe that the greater freedom will be beneficial and helpful to the concept.
The selective system in my constituency has broken down—at the insistence of young, largely Conservative parents. The idea that the comprehensive principle is exclusively a Labour Party concept is not borne out by the facts. I would not presume to talk about other areas, but in my constituency, which is new and which has grown unbelievably in a short time, public opinion would not accept that it was fair for 25 per cent. of children to attend one school and 75 per cent. to attend another. In my constituency there is one established grammar school only.
Once that percentage of selection is reached, the educational arguments do not prevail but the social arguments are more important—the sheep and goat policies. The young parent with abitions for his children in the kind of area that

I represent—and areas in the new towns have gone very much Tory—responded to Conservative proposals, and it is that feeling that is being carried out in the present Government's policy. Those who seek to suggest that this is the way forward in the future will be helped and not hindered by the action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend in this Bill.

Mr. Christopher Price: We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is expert in education matters and in new towns. He has told the House, quite properly, that a figure of 25 per cent. would be an unacceptable percentage to take away and put in a separate school. What percentage does he think would be acceptable in an area such as a new town, in which he is so expert?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Speaking of the area that I know well, de novo I would never seek to construct from scratch a selection of any kind at all. If I may answer the hon. Gentleman's question—I give this only as a timorous view, because it is a brave person who lays down the law on matters of this sort—believe that socially one can probably sustain such a figure up to about 10 per cent. That is a purely personal view. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and I have taken part in education debates over many years and I know of his close study of these matters. However, if he asked me to produce some evidence of that "gut" feeling, I should be in difficulties. Speaking socially, I believe that figures would be about the limit that public opinion would stand. That is drawn from one type of experience only and I am not seeking to speak of any other area.
I wish to make on additional point. One casualty of the move towards compulsory comprehensive education, which is particularly sad and which has not so far been mentioned, is the direct grant grammar school. I believe deeply in the maintained sector, and I also believe that that is the Secretary of State's overwhelming priority, as he has made clear. Nevertheless, in a society such as ours there was great benefit in a form of organisation that brought together both the maintained and independent sectors. I hope that one day we shall have sufficient finance—I hope that this will happen under some Government some day—to enable us to go into partnership with the


independent sectors and to harness to the service of a much wider social range of child the undoubted educational benefits that they have to offer.
I very much regret that one of the results of the compulsive comprehensive policy has been that so many excellent schools have been driven into the independent sector. I cannot believe that that is good for the sort of child for whom those schools were particularly developed. I await in hope and expectation that we shall see an advance on those lines.
I see the Bill as an extension of choice and freedom. In that sense it is exactly analogous with the compulsory requirement for the selling of local authority housing. The object behind both policies is the extension of choice, and that is precisely what the Bill is designed to do. The method will be different according to the service that one is dealing with, but the principle behind it is the same for both. I warmly welcome the choice provided in the Bill.
I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend brought into his impressive Second Reading speech the subject of standards. The truth is that there are effective and good comprehensive schools, but one regrets that some are nothing like as good. The task before the House, and certainly before the Government, is the improvement of standards of all kinds, regardless of the organisation of the school. I am getting a little tired of hearing—too frequently in Conservative circles—the parrot talk to the effect that standards are automatically falling. I do not accept this. I think that some of that parrot talk, regardless of local circumstances and particularly social changes, is based on massive ignorance and is grossly unfair to the teaching profession.
I am sure that many hon. Members have visited schools in decaying inner city areas and have seen what teachers can do with what is, socially speaking, outwardly unpromising material. But if one expects teachers to be able to provide great results compared with that area in the days before it was socially deprived, one is asking the impossible of the teachers because one is isolating education from the social surroundings of the school.
I think that what is happening is that expectations are rising and that parents are demanding more. One of the most remarkable things about the teaching profession is that by and large—and one can identify one troublesome area—its members have succeeded so remarkably. The truth is that the bright young lad who would have gone into banking or industry at the age of 15 if he had left school in 1952, was staying on to take GCEO-levels and A-levels by 1962, and by 1972 he was going on to further or higher education. Such has been the change in expectations.
I have spoken to employers and have been lambasted about the general standards of education. However if one inquires into the IQ of the applicants for jobs, one finds that it is nothing less than a miracle that teachers have got those young persons to the standard of being able to apply for the quality of job. Of course there are deficiencies. One has only to mention the subject of mathematics to see a grave problem which, to do them justice, the Labour Government appreciated. We await with interest the results of the inquiry that they put in hand, It will be for Ministers, in so far as they can or indeed should control curriculum, to give a small lead. But it is right from time to time to stand up for the teaching profession.
In the general election campaign on a considerable number of occasions I was asked by some anxious Tory parents for an assurance that the passing of this Bill—a Bill of which I spoke with total frankness in my campaign—would not mean the unscrambling of the comprehensive schools to which their children went and a massive change of further reorganisation, and all the rest of it. There may be such grounds in certain instances—I would not seek to impose a judgment on every school in every part of the country—for putting the clock back, as some would say, if Tory local education authorities were to get it into their heads that the public want a massive reorganisation into separate schools. However, I believe that they would very much misjudge the character and feelings of parents.
The answer, in one sense, lies in resources, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said so wisely. Resources would be very limited in terms of capital expenditure that would be necessary if one


intended to unscramble comprehensive schools. We must not permit—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would not do so—what happened too often under the Labour Government. That was the approval of schemes which were not properly funded, not properly housed, and which made nonsense in terms of geography. On that occasion, the whole comprehensive system was brought into disrepute. On this occasion, such approval would bring the selective system into disrepute. On the Conservative side we must apply the high standards that we sometimes feel were not applied by the Labour side.
Those like myself, who say that this is the system of the present and the future, must be ready to look at the criticisms of comprehensive schools. Some have been shown. Size is one. We no longer press for massive comprehensive schools. It was at one time regarded as the Ark of the Covenant. As a result, in inner London, the Secretary of State and the Inner London Education Authority are faced with hideous social problems of mammoth schools which only a devoted headmaster or headmistress and the school staffs are able to keep going.
Far more parents than we realise feel strongly on the argument whether children should be educated in single-sex or mixed-sex schools. I shall not attempt to argue that matter now, but it is one of parental concern. I stand for a system that gives choice to parents, so far as resources allow. Too many of the re-organisation schemes have meant that this choice has been removed from parents.
In many comprehensive schools the process of selection is as emphatic and clear as it was under the old system. There are signs, in some places that selection is operated with such rigidity that it is more harmful when brought within the school than it was formerly when practised in two separate schools. These are criticisms to which we must be receptive.
We are far more likely to find the answers and to draw on the experience of those schools that have been successful if this is a voluntary move rather than a compulsory move. This is the way forward. This is what will give a fillip to our educational standards. Without any reservations but with the greatest enthusiasm, I shall go through the Lobbies in favour of the Bill.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The House has listened attentively to the contribution by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). I sometimes wish that the Conservative leadership would listen as attentively to what he says and take account of his remarks. His speech contained a clear understanding of and commitment to, comprehensive education. He has a view where that decision should be made, which leads him to vote a certain way tonight. It was a commitment that seemed totally absent in the Secretary of State's contribution on the merits of the non-selective education system. It is disappointing that the Government have given no clue about what they want to see in forms of schools in the future. That is a point to which I shall return.
One would hardly think that hon. Members were dealing with the Government's highest legislative priority in education. That was the Secretary of State's own phrase. It is one of the Government's highest legislative priorities of all. Apart from the Budget, and independence for the Gilbert Islands, this is the first item in the shop window and the most important piece of legislation that the Government have to lay before us, yet it is of monumental irrelevance to what will happen in education, particularly secondary education, over the next couple of years.
The most dramatic event will be the impact of the cuts and financial restrictions, which have a direct bearing on the issues arising from the Bill. But they go far beyond that. They will have far more effect than this Bill on what happens in secondary education. I speak not only of the capital cuts set out in detail by the Secretary of State in a recent answer which, curiously and magically, add up to the same amount of money required to finance the assisted places scheme in the first year. Those cuts will have a severe impact, but I fear them slightly less than the effect on current expenditure of the rate support grant cuts.
I am worried about the effect of the capital cuts on special schools and nursery education. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that great enthusiasm is generated in Tory authorities throughout the country by the prospect of being able to exchange the assisted places


scheme for projects with which they would have liked to go ahead in their own schools, I have to disappoint him. The chairman of my Conservative education authority in Northumberland said that it would be better to concentrate on improving the general education service rather than a particular area, such as the independent and non-maintained schools. The chairman added
Special cases could be provided for. But there aren't that many top private schools in the county, and our high schools have extremely high standards. We haven't got any money yet for an improvement in services. Any help for private schools would be bound to be limited, particularly with the Government's spending cuts.
I know of no excitement for this change of direction, but there is great concern about the impact of the cuts. That concern was mainly about the capital cuts that were known. But there will also be the effect of the cut in rate support grant, the impact of which will be felt most keenly on the salary bill of education authorities. Where do we go then for higher standards, for lower class sizes or for giving individual attention to the brightest pupil or the pupil most in need of help? I hope that that is the objective of all hon. Members. Where do we look for nursery classes in the face of this major cutback? That will be the most dramatic development in education over the next couple of years.
Another reason why the Bill will not be relevant over the next two years is that it will make little difference whether the measure stays on the statute book or not. If anyone supposes that during the next five years right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench will use the powers in the Bill to ensure that the remaining non-comprehensive authorities go comprehensive, they are very much mistaken. I cannot understand why Ministers have brought forward the Bill at all. They can carry on playing the same game that some of the authorities have been playing for a long time—the delaying tactic of submitting comprehensive schemes that they hope will be disapproved, of submitting schemes at the latest possible stage and generally continuing a game of delay in order to avoid the ultimate decision, which will eventually come to them all, of trying to provide

the full range of educational opportunities for all their children.
I do not have much love for the 1976 Act. When Mrs. Williams wielded it as an instrument for educational change it was hardly like Samson wielding the jawbone of an ass. It came badly unstuck in one or two instances of attempted use. It illustrated that the battle for comprehensive education has to proceed at two levels—the local level as well as the national level.
When the Government bring forward proposals not simply to remove powers of compulsion but to take the comprehensive principle out of legislation, we are bound to inquire what it is all about. I believe that the Government are looking for a way of striking an anti-comprehensive posture without doing or saying anything in particular. I was confirmed in that view by the opening remarks of the Secretary of State. Some of us, perhaps naively, entertained the hope that by his appointment he would occasion a shift in the apparent drift of his party leadership into an anti-comprehensive posture. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to have done so. All he does in slating the case for this legislation is to suggest that in some way it will enable more choice to be provided.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not talking about the choice to be given to education authorities to have one system or another; he was trying to strike the familiar chord in the minds of those of his hon. Friends who believe, against all the evidence, that a selective system means choice. A selective system does not mean choice; it means that those parents whose children pass the 11-plus examination can get those children into grammar schools. As the hon. Member for Wokingham pointed out, that leaves the great majority of other people seriously dissatisfied at the fact that their children have no choice at all.
I found totally lacking from the Secretary of State's speech any suggestion that he had began to recognise the value of a non-selective system. I believe that what he is looking for is the opportunity to strike a posture. I do not believe that he is engaged in some great devolutionary measure to change the whole relationship between central and local government in


education. I do not believe that to be his motive, or that it would be the effect of the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the very phrase that I have in mind—a phrase that I do not like very much, but which is popular in his Department—that education is a national service locally provided. That phrase is often used in Elizabeth House. But elsewhere in his speech the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that, with the Bill, Elizabeth House would pack up and go home and a fundamental change would come about in the relationship between central and local government in education. I do not believe that it will, and I do not think that that is what lies behind it at all. Nor do I see any general drift in this Government towards that important and fundamental change in the way that we run our country.
In that context, I refer again to the example of housing, because I think that it proves what the Government are about. I should be very hard placed to find in my constituency many Conservative councillors who believed it right that they should have taken from them the right to judge housing needs and the need for a rented housing stock in their own area. They are not happy with the idea of having freedom taken from them, but the Government's attitude and action in that case shows clearly what is going on in these debates—that an argument is to be settled according to the views of people on that argument alone and not according to any grand conception of where the balance should lie.
One could have quite an argument about where the balance should lie in the issue now before us. I think that the strongest point in favour of allowing it to lie where it does now is that the general framework of education policy should include the right of children to have the full range of opportunity made available to them, particularly in the vital secondary years.
We make a number of things part of the general framework. We do not leave to local authorities power to decide whether they will provide primary education or they will end secondary education at 14 instead of 16. We set certain limits on what the service provided throughout the nation should be. As I say, there can be

scope for argument where the limits be placed, but I do not detect in the Government's approach to this Bill any real rethinking about where the balance should be.
In my view, there are strong arguments against supporting the Government in this instance, because what they are trying to do is provide a sop to those among their own membership in this place and some of their party members—just some of them—in local authorities who want to be able to maintain an anti-comprehensive posture and who will be very happy to see the comprehensive principle removed from our national legislation. This has freed the Secretary of State from doing what he should have done today, that is, tell the House what he really thinks about the way in which secondary education in this country should develop.
If we strike the principle out of our national legislation, it will be seen, I believe, as an invitation to local authorities to begin to unscramble and to go back. That is what lies behind the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Wokingham. I believe that there are those in the Secretary of State's party who would love the opportunity to do just that.
There are others, I am glad to say, who have been loyal supporters of the comprehensive principle throughout. Many local education authorities have calmly gone comprehensive without any great legislative pressure. They must find the present Government's attitude a little puzzling, because of their total lack of any real commitment to a non-selective system.
Those hon. Members who believe, as I do, that education should not be selective in the secondary years will have to carry on the principal fight over the next five years to places other than this. I think that the fight will have to be locally fought, as it has been already to some extent in Tameside. There will be other occasions when we can win that fight locally.
At this stage, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to have nothing to do with the Bill, because I think that it is an attempt by the Conservative Party to get off the hook and please the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others who want to see the comprehensive principle struck out—and not just out of


national legislation but out of educational practice. We should have nothing to do with it. We owe it to our children to provide them with a secondary education system in which they are not denied opportunities because of a decision made at the age of 11. We shall be happy to win the battle outside the House, but let us get the principles right here.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I do not recognise in this short and necessary Bill any of the aspects of caricature so vividly painted by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I am a strong supporter of the Bill, for reasons which I shall set out in a moment. First, however, I wish to endorse the warm and well deserved tributes paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) to our two hon. Friends who have made their maiden speeches.
I was able to listen to the greater part of both those speeches, and I found that by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) to be quite fascinating, not least because I know from my previous contacts with him that he speaks from a wealth of personal experience in the education service. I remember serving with him on a number of interesting policy groups looking into aspects of education policy. It was a pleasure for me, and, I am sure, for the House, to have the benefit of his knowledge and advice in this debate.
Equally, I found it delightful to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson). It was an especial pleasure for me, as a mere southerner with a soft spot for people north of the Trent. I find it excellent that there is another Yorkshireman on these Government Benches. I have long supported Yorkshire in cricket and in many other things, and I thought it particularly welcome to hear my hon. Friend make such a powerful speech. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to hearing again from both my hon. Friends as frequently as they can catch the eye of the Chair.
I listened closely also to the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who opened for the Opposition Front Bench. I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in congratulating

him on his recent very well deserved honour. However, I thought that his comments on this short and necessary Bill, as I describe it, were well wide of the mark, and I shall now underline a few of the reasons why I say that.
If I noted his words correctly, the right hon. Gentleman began by describing the Bill as a short and mean measure. I think that those were his two adjectives. I agree with him on the first—I have used it myself—but I cannot agree on the second. It is a travesty of the truth. I regard it far more as a genorous Bill, generous in the sense that it seeks to do something which Governments have been all too bad at doing in recent years, that is, to get out of the way of people's decisions and choices in their own sphere, in matters which affect them personally.
In my view, the first responsibility of any Government, whether in education or anything else, is to ask themselves these questions: Is this an area in which we need or must intervene? Is it an area in which we must seek to compel people to do that which they might otherwise not want to do? Therefore, I think that the spirit which inspires this short Bill is one of generosity, not meanness.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that the Bill would bring back privileges for the few. That was his second charge, if I remember aright. In truth, there is a very different way of looking at the Bill. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Bill will in fact reopen opportunities for those who wish to take them.
We on the Conservative Benches—I am sure that my hon. Friends agree—are all in favour of reopening and extending personal and family opportunity in every sphere possible. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, the argument on this Bill hangs together with that on housing and about extending opportunities or reopening opportunities or reopening opportunities for people who want to take them.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether his interpretation is that the reopening of opportunities should apply only in those areas which have not yet complied with the current legislation, or that it should be applied more extensively even in areas which are now fully comprehensive?

Mr. Forman: The essence of reopening opportunities is to make available to people things which they are demanding. If there are areas of the country—indeed, I believe that this applies to the greater part of the country—where there is no visible demand either for delay or for the right to preserve selective education, I am not a believer in creating demand artificially where none exists. However, in my part of Greater London, the London borough of Sutton, there is very strong feeling on this issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), now on the Front Bench, well knows, since he comes from the same borough. There is a strong feeling that good schools should not be destroyed needlessly in the name of a dogma—whether Socialist or any other.
Opportunities must be made available where there is a demand for them. In parts of the country, including my area, we are responding to local parental demand. The right hon. Member for Widnes said that the Bill undermines the existing comprehensive system. However, the Bill extends and underpins diversity. That is something in which Government Members believe. The Bill honours the principle of local choice.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill weakens the rights of parents and parental choice. In fact, the Bill strengthens parental rights where they are demanded. It does not extend those rights to those who have not demanded them. One cannot have immaculate choice and give 100 per cent. opportunity to everybody, but that does not mean that one should not make it available to those who seek it. To do that would be a denial of the basic principles in which I and my hon. Friends have believed for many years.
The Opposition's main arguments are weak at best. At worst they merely cover up their opinion that comprehensive education is a sacred cow which occupies a central position in Labour Party dogma. It is one of the few matters on which the various wings of the Labour movement can agree. They seize upon it with eagerness because they can rally round it. Members of the Labour Party can agree on the need for a wealth tax and on the need to abolish the House of Lords. Those issues will provide enough cement to keep them tenuously together

for a while. Comprehensive education also falls into that category.
I welcome this short and necessary Bill, on behalf of parents, pupils, teachers and others involved in the London borough of Sutton. I am delighted that this is one of the first Bills to be introduced in this Session. It is particularly welcomed by the parents and all those connected with two of the best schools in my constituency, the two high schools in Wallington, which have laboured under a degree of educational blight because of the uncertainty caused by the previous legislation. It will be a relief to everybody connected with those schools that the Bill is to be enacted speedily.
The Bill represents the speedy fulfilment of one of our most important election pledges—to restore local authority freedom. We must remember that it does no more than restore the position, broadly speaking, to what it was under the 1944 Act. Let us not listen to the nonsense about tearing up consensus and education principles. This Bill is in the mainstream of education policy since 1944.
The Labour Party's record has, in contrast, been damaging and expensive. The Labour Party has clung to this aspect of its dogma not because of the merits of its policy, as set out in the 1976 Education Act, but because this was one of the few areas on which its warring factions could agree easily.
This is a "freedom from" Bill, as opposed to a "freedom to" Bill. It is urgently necessary. Essentially, it represents freedom from Socialist compulsion and freedom from the obsession with social engineering. My hon. Friends and I had many opportunities to discuss this during the proceedings on education legislation in the previous Parliament. We look forward to a "freedom to" measure to succeed this Bill which will incorporate the principles of the parents' charter—which was originally suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton)—local authority rights to take up places at independent schools and the much heralded and welcome assisted places scheme. All those are aspects of freedom.
It is not sufficient to concentrate on restoring negative freedom, important though that is. We must move on early


in this Parliament to the positive freedoms which have been described by the Secretary of State. The education service is experiencing difficulties, not least because of the financial constraints within which it must operate. I have much sympathy with teachers, administrators and others in the uncomfortable choices that they must now make. This is one of the practical effects of five years of low growth—in some cases no growth—under the Labour Government. There is no doubt that the arguments in favour of our Budget policies and other broad policies is that they give the country the last hope of creating that amount of new economic growth that will enable us do all those things about which Opposition Members so often preach but which are so seldom achieved by them because of the frailty of their economic policies.
There is an urgent need to do more for nursery education at both local and national level. We must put greater emphasis on training teachers for the younger end of the statutory age range. What I call the Rolls-Royce sectors in education—the higher and further sectors—have taken too much of the share of available resources recently. If we want value for money at a time when the money available for education is bound to be limited we must concentrate our scarce resources on the young.
I hope that the £1·4 million which has been lopped off nursery provision by the Budget will be restored quickly when the Government are able to afford the level of spending on education that I should like to see. If it proves not to be possible to restore that particularly important area I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will consider the possibility of switching some of the funds within the existing education budget, tight though the problem may be, from the older end of the statutory age range towards the younger end. Taking into account the fact that because so much of the necessary spending on nursery education is discretionary rather than statutory, the local authorities concerned—including my own in the London borough of Sutton—may need some kind of special help to give a long-overdue boost to nursery education. That is very much my hope.
There are many other important aspects of education which one might touch upon within the framework of this Bill but I shall confine myself to the need for more book provision. When we talk about the basics of education, nothing is more important than adequate spending on books. This issue, and that concerning the younger end of the age range, ought to be the two priorities for the new Government as they look at the positive side of their policies for education provision.
I join in the welcome given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). It is good to see his prematurely balding head on the Front Bench No doubt over the coming weeks and months he will lose a bit more hair over some of the problems in the education service. We on the Government side look forward to the pronouncements of someone whom the press has described as a leading Left-winger who is said to have lost his political virginity since he accepted Shadow office. That probably does not apply to the hon. Gentleman, who I think lost his virginity a long time ago, and who was certainly the bane of his Whips for many years before his recent elevation. I hope, in all seriousness, that the hon. Gentleman will spend the bulk of his time as Shadow spokesman defending the real interests of children, of parents and of the education service generally, and in supporting my right hon. and learned Friend when he seeks to do that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will spend less of his time, as I understand he has done recently—when I presume he had more freedom—at TUC economic meetings or at political demos.
Bad examples were set in the past in this matter by the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science. The right hon. Lady came to regret those examples. She said so from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. I hope that we can carry forward the education service of this country with the benefit of this Bill, and its successor later in this Parliament, on a stable basis so that the whole House can give its full-hearted backing to what is one of the most vital services to which we contribute public money.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) complimented my hon.


Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on his new appointment and said that my hon. Friend had lost his political virginity. I presume that that implies that the rest of us have retained ours. We shall deal with that implication accordingly.
The hon. Gentleman used the usual clouded verbiage of the Tories about freedom—I think that was one of the words he used—of parental choice, and about a parents' charter. They were very interesting words but they have no impact whatsoever. The reality is that after all these long years more than 80 per cent. of our parents had no choice, and their children had no choice. They were put into the secondary modern schools. That is the stark reality and it ill becomes hon. Members to use such nice-sounding nouns and adjectives because we know precisely what those words mean. I ally myself, in general terms, with the speech made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He saw very clearly the essence of this Bill. When the Secretary of State says airily that, of course, the Bill is not about comprehensive education but about section 13 of the 1944 Education Act he really must weigh up to whom he is talking. The reality is that this is a very dangerous and important Bill.
It demonstrates the class posture of the Tory Party on education. This is the reality from which the Tory Party can never break away, try as it might. It can never get away from the fact that it wants pelf, place and privilege for Tories and their children no matter, at whose expense. Of course, it implies something a great deal more serious than appears on the surface.
I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) who has always been—and I choose my words carefully—perceptive about comprehensive education. I would hazard a guess that that is why he is on the Back Bench and not the Front Bench. Everybody knows that he believes in comprehensive education although he was eager to say that he supports this anti-comprehensive Bill. But he is a member of the Tory Party and these things must be said.
If one believes, or partially believes, in comprehensive education, one is held back from full belief by membership of

the Tory Party which at this moment is in the hands of its ultra-Right wing. When I heard the hon. Member for Carshalton speaking about the difficulties which we shall experience in the Labour Party during the coming months I thought he must be joking. The fact is that on every aspect of its policy on education, the Conservative Party is on the horns of a terrible dilemma. It does not know where it is because its policies are so far to the Right that, already, the people who voted for the Tories have rumbled what is happening. If there were another vote now we would see a tremendous change.
I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Wokingham concerning the element of compulsion in the 1976 Act. All laws are compulsive and the word "compulsion" is an emotive one. We all use it yet most of us hate the idea of being compelled to do that which they do not wish to do. However, the implication that people do not want comprehensive education is absolute claptrap. Most Tory voters wanted comprehensive education and still do and the proof of that is the refusal of the Conservative Party to unscramble comprehensive education. It dare not do it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) made this fundamental point. The Tories dare not unscramble comprehensive education because their supporters believe in it. This Bill is for a very select elite grouping. It is not designed for the bulk of the voters. The bulk of the voters, whether Labour or Tory, profoundly believe in and accept comprehensive education. The Tory Party knows that as well as I do.
Shirley Williams talking about the 1976 Act on television today pointed out something which is profoundly true, namely that in addition to it being necessary to have comprehensive education we need continuity, nationally, in education. We need a situation where people who are moving about the country can enter their children in a new school where they can take up where they left off as reasonably as possible, and continue their education up to the higher levels with as little upset as possible.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) revealed in his maiden speech that he was a teacher. There was a great deal of sincerity in what he had to say although he does not agree with


us. Fair enough. He said that we had oversold comprehensive education. It would be considerable achievement if we in the Labour Party could oversell anything. The propaganda machine is completely in the hands of the Tory Party. Every time we breathe the word "comprehensive" there are fulminations in the entire press from the Sun to the Daily Telegraph. The Daily Mirror comes out on our side but that is only because the Daily Mirror knows that there is a sale for our point of view.
Practically the whole of the media attack comprehensive education relentlessly, but they have failed. The people have seen that comprehensive education is for them. Therefore any talk, especially by a teacher, of our overselling it is unreal.
It has been said that we promised everybody a grammar school education. I would not dare to promise everybody a grammar school education—God forbid. Many of us went to grammar schools. We know that, no matter how it is praised by the Conservatives, grammar school education was a narrow, academic education with hardly any practicality. We have moved beyond that. The Conservative Party has not, although it likes small classes and large numbers of teachers for its children.
We have gone far beyond the academicism of grammar schools. We want a much longer period for our children. We hope wider, more general education for a that the lairds of the Conservative Party will occasionally move in a progressive direction and want that for all children. They do not want good education for all children. They want it exclusively for a small group.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North pleaded for more fire equipment in schools. I am surprised that the Tories do not rush through a Bill to withdraw all the fire equipment from comprehensive schools. They hate them.
The Secretary of State frequently used the phrase "the quality of education". Much has been said about the quality of education. Some time ago the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and his colleagues introduced the first Black Paper, which was followed by others, in which they talked a pack of nonsense, de

tracting from education and its achievements. All their newspapers blazoned that forth as though it were divine revelation. It was found necessary for us to have what was called a great debate in education. It was far from being a great debate, but it was welcomed by most teachers because it gave them the opportunity to give the lie to what was being said in the Black Papers about standards. It was a long debate, and it was conducted all over the country.
As a result of the debate we produced quite a big discussion paper in July 1977. In paragraph 4 of the background we said:
It is simply untrue that there has been a general decline in educational standards. Critics who argue on these lines often make false comparisons, for instance,"—
and this means the Tories—
with some non-existent educational golden age of the past, or matching today's school leavers against those of a generation ago, without allowing for the fact that a far larger proportion of boys and girls now stay on into the sixth form. Recent studies have shown clearly that today's school children read better than those of 30 years ago. Far more children over a wider range of ability study a modern language or science than did a generation ago. Many more take and pass public examinations. Many more go on to full-time higher education.
That was not only my opinion, although it vindicated the opinion I held at the time. It was based on wide-ranging discussions throughout the country's education movement. Yet Conservative Members still, in the face of massive research and all the evidence, try to convey the impression that education today is worse than it was in that pseudo-golden age for which they long, when we did not have comprehensive education and they had their way.
The 1976 Act is a danger to the Conservative Party. The Act seeks to educate wide groups of children to the highest level in the most compassionate way that we know. It is one of the most advanced and compassionate of all Education Acts.
The 1944 Act, good as it was, enshrined selection. The 1976 Act does not want selection. The hon. Gentleman intoned like an incantation the glories of the 1944 Act, without facing the reality that we had to go a stage further and abolish selection. The 1976 Act did that and opened up a whole new vista of educational opportunity to all


our children. The Act is hated by the Conservative Party precisely because it is democratic and compassionate and abolishes selection.
What do the Conservatives know about selection? How can they know much about it? Their policies are formulated by a Cabinet literally all of whose members went to Oxbridge. It is the most Right-wing public school Cabinet there has been for a century—and that was said first not by me but by Peregrine Worsthorne.
What can the Cabinet know about the State education system? In my last speech on education I pointed out that when the present Prime Minister came to Sheffield she went to one school, a direct grant school. There are 250 other schools outside in the State system. Her adviser went to a little school called Westbourne preparatory school, and he advised her on the education and training of teachers. That is still the Conservative approach to education.
The Bill seeks not to improve our children's education but to improve the position of a small, select minority at the expense of the overwhelming majority of our children. It is only a beginning. That was why the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right when he said that it betrayed the posture of the Tory Party on education. The Bill is the beginning of an all-out assault on comprehensive education. If this happens, the whole front will be broadened and deepened.
When I hear the Bill being backed up by such unctuous hypocrisy and pseudodemocracy, it almost makes me puke, because I know what the Conservatives are after in this struggle. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is known in our ranks as Von Macclesfield, laughs at what I have just said. We would expect that.
There is a pretence of goodness about the Bill when the real aim is to attack the children of working people. On 22 May I asked the Secretary of State
if he has any plans to allow the reintroduction of the 11-plus examination in areas where it has been abolished".
The hon. Member for Brent, North replied as follows:
It will be for local education authorities to decide the most appropriate form of organisa

tion of secondary education for their areas, and to submit proposals to my right hon. and learned Friend, wherever necessary, under section 13 of the Education Act 1944, as amended."—[Official Report, 22 May 1978; Vol. 967, c. 72–73.]
If ever there was a blunt statement of an all-out attack on comprehensive education, that answer is it. It gives the game away. It means that in those places where there is a settled education for our children, where they are going higher than they have ever been in the whole history of education, the aim is to unsettle it and, with this Bill, to begin to unscramble the whole of it. It is no good the Conservatives denying that, because it is what everybody is steadily beginning to see, in the midst of all the problems that we face.
I am glad that the Government have introduced the Bill so quickly. I am glad that the claws have been seen, as they are being seen in economic directions and in every other direction. More and more people are seeing the Tories for what they are.
The class prejudice in the Bill is paramount. I have always said that in education, prejudice on a class basis is more naked than anywhere else, on whichever side it is to be found. But the nakedness of the class prejudice in favour of a small group of children, who are already privileged compared with the rest of our children, stands out. I think that the Bill is wicked, because it attempts to set back the bulk of our children at the expense of a few. Everybody knows that over four-fifths of our boys and girls are now attending comprehensive schools. There is massive evidence that both Tory and Labour voters wish to continue with these schools.
Why is it that the majority want comprehensive education? It is because every boy and girl is denied the full flowering of their education under the tripartite system. We realised that when we examined the secondary modern schools, despite the efforts of honourable people, such as teachers, to do something about it.
Comprehensive education brings together children from different backgrounds. The Labour Party knows that comprehensive education has problems. We are the last people on earth to say that the neighbourhood schools solve all the problems. The hon. Member for


Wokingham said that comprehensive education is causing terrible things to happen because the schools are too large. He is totally wrong although I believe that he means well.
A school is not an organisation for rectifying the ills of society although it tries hard to fulfil that role. A school reflects the ills of society in its area. I am the first to admit that if a comprehensive school is in a difficult area it is likely to prove a difficult school. It will not help to take the top 5 per cent. of pupils and send them to another school at the far end of the city, leaving the other 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. where they were. What good will that do? The solutions advocated by the Government are merely pseudo solutions.
There have been tremendous achievements in comprehensive education, but side by side with these are real problems with which we are all grappling. The Labour Party invites members of the Conservative Party to help us grapple with the problems instead of using their press and propaganda machine to try to help an elite grouping and prevent the children whom the Labour Party are helping from receiving a decent education.
The Tory Party talks about freedom of choice, but what freedom of choice was there for 85 per cent. of the parents? I was an 11-plus invigilator and I had to mark papers for many years. When that examination disappeared from Sheffield it was as if a great cloud had been lifted from the primary schools. Everybody said so. Instead of having a narrow curriculum of English, arithmetic and mechanical tests—the "Friday morning is test morning" mentality—we were able to give children a broad, general education. The schools began to flower.
Any honourable teacher will say that there was an amazing change when the 11-plus disappeared. The primary schools became the pride and joy of the international educational world. Observers loved to come to our schools. One went into schools in the east end of cities that were like fairyland. The children exhibited their work on the classroom walls and modern teaching methods were used. Experiments were taking place. There were no experiments with the 11-plus. There was merely adherence to a narrow system of education.
When the Conservative Government seek to resurrect the 11-plus let them think what they are doing. I describe the Bill as a wicked measure because of its effect on children and parents. When results of the 11-plus were given to parents we often found that children in Conservative areas of Sheffield would not be allowed out to play because they had failed the examination. What a nauseating business to pour into a child's ears at the age of 11 years that he is a failure. That is what the 11-plus did. It consigned them to a lower form of education instead of allowing them to go to the higher echelons of education.
The Labour Party is proud of the 1976 Act. It is the greatest Act since the 1870 Act. It was the greatest stride in the democratisation of education that Britain had ever seen. The Tories will have the task of trying to take away the great advance that the Labour Party struggled towards. Let them try. They will be faced with the anger of all the people.
I hear the Tory Party say "It is in our manifesto". Does it honestly believe that its supporters voted for that issue? In The Observer on Sunday Alan Watkins wrote about the nonsense of always saying that every aspect of a manifesto is voted for independently by everybody. The reality is that voters were conned by money being put into their pockets at a time when money was short. They voted basically on that one measure. However, it is said that everybody is "agin" comprehensive education.
The Bill embodies Tory education philosophy. It contains that which is best for Tories. They apparently have a real fear of educating the majority of children to a higher level. I am at a loss to understand why. They somehow believe that by educating their own children to an elite level other children will be left behind and they will still be in a position of authority. That belief will come home to roost. The Conservative Party claim of carrying out its election programme is nonsense. Most of the electorate does not examine a manifesto in that way. I wish it did. In reality the electorate votes for the main planks in a political platform.
The hon. Member for Carshalton spoke about public expenditure cuts. They will be massive. A cut in education is a cut in compassion. It means that the children


in the State system will not receive the education that would be available if there were more money, smaller classes, more teachers and better classrooms. Does anybody believe that the Conservative Party, having cut expenditure in education for our children, will cut expenditure for its own children? It will not. The Government will introduce education cuts that will hammer our children. They will use the money for the rich.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) said that 220 hon. Members attended Oxbridge. Most were from the Conservative Benches. The Cabinet is entirely public school. Will its children suffer? Will money be taken away from the education of its children? It will not and the Government know that it will not. When they make public expenditure cuts in education they are cutting the education of the majority of children in Britain, but certainly not that of their own.
Government decisions will be taken by those who attended preparatory schools, crammers, public schools and Oxbridge. Those are the people who will make decisions about the future of our children's education. We shall fight that. The Conservative Cabinet is drawn more than any Cabinet this century from the ruling echelons of the upper class.

Mr. Forman: rose—

Mr. Flannery: I am sorry that I have stung the hon. Gentleman, but I shall finish my remarks. What do the Government know about the State system? When did Ministers or Tory Back Benchers last go into an ordinary school? When did they talk to the children in the east end of the big cities? When did they examine how much equipment there is in such schools compared with that at Eton and Harrow?
Conservatives hate the State system with an undying hatred. They reject further advancement for our children. They distort the problems with which we are grappling. They use their propaganda machine to tell the most outrageous lies about what goes on in comprehensive schools. They do not face reality, and when they get a chance they introduce Bills to try to curb the education of ordinary children. They have a press

that says exactly what they want it to say. That is what the present Bill is about.
This measure is an all-out attempt to put the clock back in the interests of those who have pelf, place and privilege. That is what the Bill is about, and the Labour Party recognises it. Let us not fool ourselves about its aims. It is only the beginning. It shows the Conservative Party's posture on education. Once a major inroad has been made it will be widened and deepened. There will follow a full-scale assault on comprehensive education. The Government dare not make that assault now because the public would not tolerate it.
This is the beginning of a major and sustained assault on the whole concept of comprehensive education. We must fight it here, in Committee and outside the House. We must warn our constituents from every platform. We should devote time to explaining what the Bill is about. We should let everybody know that their comprehensive schools are beginning, once again, to be endangered by the Conservative Party.

7 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What an amazing speech we have just heard. If anybody wanted to know why the Conservative Party won the last election, that speech would be one of the finest demonstrations that we have heard for a long time. I have never heard such diabolical class-conscious claptrap in all my seven and a half years in the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who is a member of the teaching profession, will be thoroughly ashamed, when he reads his speech in Hansard tomorrow, of what he has said—not only to the House, but beyond, through the press, to the people of this country.
The hon. Gentleman was critical of the present Government, stating that they all went to Oxbridge. [Hon. Members: "So did you".] I do not happen to be a member of the present Cabinet. The Prime Minister is the product of a Lincolnshire grammar school. Perhaps it shows the quality of the education at that school that my right hon. Friend passed very well to university—yes, to Oxbridge—and then got a good degree.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Hillsborough speaks for the people of Hillsborough, although there was a substantial swing from the Labour Party in his constituency—

Mr. Flannery: No.

Mr. Winterton: Yes, there was. Statistics that I have obtained from the Library show that there was a 6·2 per cent. swing from Labour to Conservative in Hillsborough. So the hon. Gentleman does not speak for all those in his constituency. Perhaps some who voted for him previously decided this time that his example in the House did not encourage them to do so again.
During his rather long speech the hon. Member also said that all was well in education and that the comprehensive system would be a panacea and would lead to future success—[Hon. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] Yes, he did.

Mr. Flannery: No, I did not.

Mr. Winterton: I am happy to let the hon. Gentleman intervene, if he wishes.
If, as the hon. Gentleman implies, all is well, why did the ex-Prime Minister, the current Leader of the Opposition, launch the "great debate" under the previous Government, clearly reacting to the views of a large number of people concerned about the system and the standards of education? The then Secretary of State, Mrs. Shirley Williams, took up the great debate and went storming around the country addressing many meetings, seeking to understand people's concern and promoting the Socialist approach to education.
Nevertheless, education was one of the reasons why the Socialists lost office. The hon. Member may say that people do not read election addresses or manifestos, but Governments are often criticised by people for not honouring their manifesto commitments. The people can read, they do read and they know what the parties are promoting at election time.
This Bill was a commitment in the Tory manifesto. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's exposition because it honours what the Tory Party said to the electorate.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough may criticise those who go to public school

and Oxbridge—or other leading universities, of which there are many excellent examples. However, he went on to imply that Conservative Members took little interest in and had little knowledge of the maintained sector. Perhaps he did not study the debates in the previous Parliament, when Conservative Members showed not only their concern but their deep involvement in that sector—if not now, as hon. Members, at the time when they were in local government.
I myself, for six years, served on an education committee and was active as a governor and manager of many secondary, and infant and junior schools.

Mr. Cryer: Where do the hon. Gentleman's children go?

Mr. Winterton: I have a child at a maintained school. That deals with the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) who just scraped back at the last election.
I was chairman of the governors of a non-selective co-educational high school in the division that I served on the county council. I took an active interest outside formal governors' meetings, social events and speech days. I attended at other times to see the type of education provided. I am concerned about the quality of the education that we provide for all children, not just those whose parents—some of them Labour Members—can send them to fee-paying schools.
I should like to welcome to his new responsibilities—I am sorry that he is not present at the moment—the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He is a proponent of revolution, even if not of devolution, but I am sure that the House and the Committee will be entertained by his speeches in response to the Conservative case.
I should like to pay tribute also to the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and join in the congratulations expressed on his elevation to the Privy Council. I have not always agreed with the right hon. Member—he and I often sparred in Committee on the Education Bill in the previous Parliament—but I always respected his sincerity in promoting a case and his knowledge of teaching and education. I wish him well in whatever post he is given hi future.
Where does comprehensive education stand in Tory education philosophy? The Secretary of State pointed out that the first comprehensive schools were established by Conservative education authorities.

Mr. Flannery: Tell us where.

Mr. Forman: In Surrey.

Mr. Winterton: As my hon. Friend says, in Surrey—and in other parts of the country. The first comprehensive schools were established by Conservative education authorities so the hon. Member's attempt to persuade the House that the Bill seeks to undermine and destroy the comprehensive system is a total distortion of the truth.
We believe in quality of education and equality of opportunity for all children according to their ability. There were faults in the Education Act 1944, which was condemned by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. However, that Act enjoyed the support of all parties. At that time education did not feature as a major campaign in party politics as it does today. Education became a major area of party conflict when the Labour Party issued the notorious circular 10/65, which sought to impose a system of secondary education on local education authorities.
If the selective system has not worked as well as we would have liked, I wonder whether the fault lies not within the selective system itself but in the way in which teachers are paid under Burnham. Head teachers are rewarded in accordance with the number of pupils, particularly in the fifth and sixth forms at the top of their schools. Therefore many secondary modern school head teachers may not have taken the advice and recommendation of the form master or mistress of a pupil and transferred him to the local grammar school. They retained such pupils in the school, realising that here was the basis of a sixth form, which could produce financial benefits for the school staff.

Mr. Flannery: That is typical.

Mr. Winterton: It is irrelevant whether hon. Gentlemen say that that is typical of the way in which Government supporters argue. In some areas the transfer of pupils from secondary modern to grammar schools worked very well. Indeed, there

were some cases in the reverse direction, with children going from grammar to secondary modern schools. In the area in which I served as a county councillor children were sent down from the grammar school across the road for a more appropriate education.

Mr. Flannery: That was a Freudian slip.

Mr. Winterton: That may well have been described as a Freudian slip. However, the secondary modern school was down the road. I was correct in describing the situation as I did originally. The headmaster of the school was progressive. He has gone on to more important positions. He recommended that children should move up from the high school—we operated a "high school system" in Warwickshire—to the grammar school, where they would benefit from a more academic education.

Mr. Marks: Were those who were sent from grammar schools to secondary modern schools transferred on grounds of intelligence—thus proving that the 11-plus examination had been wrong—or were the transfers made on the ground of behaviour?

Mr. Winterton: The transfers were not made on the ground of behaviour. They occurred on the ground that the courses offered at the grammar school were too much for the young persons.
I accept that there are areas of doubt in any form of selection. When somebody selects a person for a job a mistake may be made. The electorate of various constituencies may feel having elected their Member of Parliament, that they made a mistake. No selection can be 100 per cent. sure. There will be areas of doubt and inaccuracy. For all its faults the 11-plus examination proved to be highly successful. There were few selection errors at the 11-plus examination, whether on the basis of the written examination, the assessment, or a combination of both.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman, in his enthusiasm, has just given the game away. Is he advocating that we should now bring back the 11-plus because it was a success?

Mr. Winterton: On previous occasions the hon. Gentleman sought to put words in my mouth. The 11-plus examination


was not the horror that it was so often painted by the hon. Gentleman. If grammar schools are retained in local education authority areas there must be some form of selection, whether by assessment or by other means. I am not opposed to selection. Life is about selection from birth until death. Therefore we cannot get away from it. To blur choice in education is to undermine what education is all about and to rob those who need them of the opportunities and facilities of that type of education.
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he presented this short, constructive and positive Bill. I look forward to the winding-up speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). He visited my constituency last Friday and addressed a large meeting of the Macclesfield Conservative political centre. It was a far larger meeting than those addressed by any Euro-candidate in the North-West in the recent European Assembly elections. That may indicate the lack of interest in Europe, but it also indicates a definite interest in education in the Macclesfield area. It is relevant that my hon. Friend had a successful meeting in Macclesfield. He was accompanied by Professor Cox, whom I greatly admire, the author of one of the education Black Papers, which contained a great deal of sense.
We in Macclesfield are facing the decision whether or not to go comprehensive. That is a difficult decision. The hon. Member for Hillsborough implied that Tory Party policy was privilege for the few and disadvantage for the many. The majority of the representations made to me by parents and pupils about the proposals to go comprehensive in the Macclesfield district come from those who live in the more deprived areas of the Macclesfield constituency. These people feel strongly about the importance of the grammar school and the benefit that a grammar school education gives to children from deprived and difficult backgrounds.
I had the same experience when, for six years, I represented an area that had previously been a Socialist county council seat. I visited many residents, in the less desirable council estates, whose children were at grammar school. I met one such pupil who, starting from a humble begin

ning, became a doctor. The grammar school gave him opportunities and he had gone on to university. He achieved a great deal through the grammar school system of education, which served this country so well for such a long time.
Under no circumstances could this Bill be described as mean. It merely reflects the democratic decisions made by the electorate on 3 May. It is very easy for the hon. Member for Hillsborough and others on the Opposition Benches to deny the democratic rights of the people and the opinions that were expressed by those who went to the polling stations and cast their vote for a party which promoted a certain policy on education.
Referring back to Macclesfield for a moment, the hon. Member for Hillsborough might be pleased to hear that it appears that the Cheshire education authority, without adequate consultation with the people of Macclesfield and the councillors representing them, has decided to proceed with the original proposals, which were on the drawing board and in the system before the change of Government on 4 May, to implement, as from September this year, a fully comprehensive system.

Mr. John Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us who are MPs for constituencies in Cheshire find his arguments somewhat startling? There are only nine Labour councillors on Cheshire county council and about 50 Conservative county councillors. The county council's plans for comprehensive education in the Warrington and Macclesfield areas have been well known for a long time, and the Conservative chairman of the education committee has made it perfectly clear that it is far too late to change the proposals.

Mr. Winterton: If the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) had listened to my words he would have understood that I did not say only the elected representatives for the Macclesfield area, but also the people of the Macclesfield area. I understand that the chairman of the education committee in Cheshire, County Councillor Ken Maynard, has offered a referendum so that the people of that area can express their view on whether they wish to proceed with comprehensive education. He has not made the same offer to Macclesfield.
The Cheshire education authority is proceeding with its original plans, although when those plans were put forward it was because the county was legally obliged to submit an all-comprehensive plan in accordance with the Education Act 1976. I believe that it would have been rational, sensible and responsible for the chairman of the education committee, no doubt after consultation with his committee, to have carried out an urgent and immediate review of the proposals for those areas of the county where comprehensive education was not in operation to see whether it was possible and feasible to retain the present selective system, or whether the reorganisation plans had gone too far and the financial, social and educational costs would have been too great.
Bearing in mind that the plans were submitted by the Cheshire education authority under duress in order to concur with its legal obligations under the 1976 Act, the local education authority has a moral commitment to the electorate of the Macclesfield area to undertake an urgent review to see whether the current system of education could be retained.
I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. Oakes: I must intervene at this point because the chairman of the education committee in Cheshire is, as I said to the House, my old opponent and my constituent. It simply is not true that Cheshire was constrained to submit plans to the Government for comprehensive education. In parts of Cheshire there may be no comprehensive education, but the county as a whole willingly submitted those plans, and Councillor Maynard has made it very clear indeed, on television and in the press, that he has no intention of being coerced by any Government into changing those plans for comprehensive education.

Mr. Winterton: Again I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he reads in Hansard what I said. I was referring specifically to my area. The comprehensive plans were submitted for Macclesfield only to comply with the legal obligations of the Education Act 1976. My area did not wish to go comprehensive. It wished to retain its present selective system, and I fully supported its

decision to do so, but Cheshire, as any law abiding authority would, honoured the obligations of the 1976 Act, and after considerable discussion put in proposals for the town of Macclesfield and the area immediately surrounding it
I indicated before the intervention by the right hon. Gentleman that I was interested in the remarks of the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. He has a connection with the area which I have the honour to serve in that he went to King's school in Macclesfield. He is an old boy of that school and recently visited the old boy society of that school. He indicated that he was fully in support of comprehensive education and against the selective system. I ask the hon. Gentleman—sadly in his absence—a straightforward question; Did he benefit from the education that he had at King's school? That school, although an independent school with an independent foundation, co-operated with the Cheshire education authority in providing selective places for boys from the Macclesfield area for many years. Many young people from difficult and deprived backgrounds have benefited immensely from the academic education provided at that school.
Sadly, because of the decisions of the previous Government, that co-operation of many years' standing has been broken. That school has now been compelled, against its will, to become totally independent and to take in fee-paying pupils only. As a result, of course, the local authority has to provide a big, new purpose-built secondary school at tremendous cost. At present it is planned as a comprehensive school, but it would take very little rearrangement for that school to become, as it was proposed many years ago, a co-educational grammar school to serve the Macclesfield area. We have in fact been short of selective places in Macclesfield for many years.
We have heard some Left-wing rantings, particularly from the hon. Member for Hillsborough. He has clearly shown why so many flocked to the polling stations to vote Conservative at the last election. They went there because of the very dangerous, almost alien, philosophy which the hon. Gentleman propounds.
We seek to provide privilege for the many, not just for the few. We want to give a good quality education to all the


young people of this country. I believe, therefore, that this is a sound Bill. It is a Bill which honours a commitment given in our election manifesto. The Tory Party, perhaps unlike the Labour Party, has on all occasions carried out the vast majority of the commitments in its election manifestos.
I welcome the Bill. I hope that I shall be given the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee so that I can debate with the hon. Member for Bedwellty and, yet again, against the hon. Member for Hillsborough. I repeat that I welcome the Bill, and I hope it gets an overwhelming majority later tonight.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Harold McCusker: I intend to make a short contribution. After having listened to the last two speeches, I intend to be as brief as possible.
The hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who have both taken an interest in education in Northern Ireland, will at least have to agree with me that the arguments that we have just heard from both sides of the House have played no part in the debate in Northern Ireland as to whether we should have comprehensive education. The people of Northern Ireland are concerned solely with keeping what has been proved and what is good, and with avoiding the destruction of a system which has been to the benefit of the Province and replacing it with something which we know not and which, when one looks around, one finds to be something that does not offer us any real replacement of what we have.
I speak as someone whose children attend a comprehensive school, and as someone who is not concerned with preserving privilege and power.
We have 50 or 60 small grammar schools in Northern Ireland, ranging in size from 300 pupils to 600. They provide a signal service to the Province. They have been instruments of social change there. If they were destroyed, it would be a sad day for the Province.
As it happens, this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. The 1976 Act did not apply to Northern Ireland. I intervene in the debate for two reasons. The first reason is that I believe that the Secretary

of State for Education and Science should be responsible for education in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain. I hope that the present Secretary of State will take a more active interest in the educaional affairs of the Province than his predecessors have done.
The second reason for my intervention is that although the Act and this Bill do not apply to Northern Ireland they both have tremendous significance for the Province because they are indicators of the Government's intentions.
The reason why the 1976 Act did not apply to Ulster was that it was unnecessary. The previous Administration did not have to deal with democratically elected local authorities which had responsibility for education. Education in Ulster is the responsibility of five education and library boards, whose members are all nominated by the responsible Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. Whilst he, of course, nominates a few elected representatives from the various district councils under the board's control, the bulk of them are the Minister's men. When the previous Administration wanted to impose a universal system of comprehensive education upon Northern Ireland, they simply invited the boards to bring forward proposals. The boards, with one or two notable exceptions, touched their forelocks and said "Yes, Sir; no Sir; three bags full, Sir", and they set about their task.
If it had not been for the opposition of a few Northern Ireland politicians—supported by some hon. Members, in this House—of the Northern Ireland Parents' Union and by the opposition of a large and influential group of people in education, the Province and the future of its education would already have been far too far down the comprehensive road. That would have been a disaster.
I cite the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as my reason for saying that, because when he visited various parts of the world to try to attract industry to Northern Ireland at a very difficult time, what was one of his principal arguments? It was that we have one of the finest educational systems in the United Kingdom. He could show a record in A-level and O-level achievement which was better than that of anywhere else in the United Kingdom. He was


citing that as one of his principal arguments for encouraging industry to come to Northern Ireland at the same time as he was setting about dismantling that system in the Province.
Our school system has been saved, but it is still not in the best of hands. I remind the hon. Member for Brent, North that the Secretary of State said today that local authorities are the best bodies to determine the most suitable form of education for an area. I hope that the Secretary of State will see to it that it will not be too long until the provision of education is back, once again, in the hands of democratically elected local authorities.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I listened with interest to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). I am disappointed to see that he is not in his place. He seemed to be arguing the case for long Bills—almost saying that only a long Bill was a good Bill. He went on to cite the fact that the Bill that his party would have introduced contained about 20 clauses, and was criticising the fact that this Bill has only two clauses. But the right hon. Gentleman should remember that Moses—I am referring to the original Moses—had a Bill that contained only 10 clauses. The argument was rather more sweeping than the Bill before us.
I do not support the right hon. Gentleman's argument that grammar schools deprive other schools of scarce resources. That simply is not true. Since many of the grammar schools are voluntarily aided and have the benefit of foundations, they are able to use those foundations to help to provide finance for much-needed pieces of equipment, and so on, that would otherwise have to come out of the resources in the public sector. Grammar schools do not take a larger share of this cake.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned Labour's holding Bolton, East and Bolton, West, as a measurement of the feeling for comprehensive education. I am not in a position to comment on that. But the right hon. Gentleman might reflect that two Education Ministers in the previous Government both, alas, lost their seats, and that in Rugby education

was the major local issue. The fact that I have the honour of representing Rugby in this place is an indication of the feeling that exists in my constituency. Rugby wants to keep its present local schools.

Mr. Christopher Price: Like Rugby school?

Mr. Pawsey: Not like Rugby school. I am thinking of its grammar schools. That is what this Bill is all about. It is about the retention of proven local schools.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Bill was bad for councils and bad for parents. Really, the reverse is true. It is good for councils because it restores choice. Let us remember that councillors, like ourselves, are accountable to the electorate for their decisions. When so much power lies at the centre, is it not really a good thing that some of that power moves away from this House to local authorities so that they themselves may express opinions and respond to the will of their electorates?
I also maintain that this Bill is good for parents. All parents want what is best for their own children. With six sons myself, I can readily appreciate that. Can anyone in the House doubt that if I felt that comprehensive education presented the only answer, I would not be arguing passionately for it? I do not believe that comprehensive education is the only answer. I believe that this argument today is about the right to choose. It is about the removal of compulsion to go comprehensive. That is all that the Bill is about. The only privilege that is demanded by parents is the privilege of choice. Parents know best what is right for their own children.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I am sorry to see that he is not in his place. He made certain remarks relating to Oxbridge, saying that the present Cabinet went to Oxbridge. He was implying substantial class prejudice. Let me reassure him that, for my part, I am not a product, as he evidently is, of a grammar school. I am not the product of a public school. For me, it was an elementary and a technical secondary school, so I do not claim any privilege whatsoever.
Let me give Opposition Members yet a further item of reassurance. My children are not educated at public schools. They are educated within the State sector, both at grammar schools and at high schools.
I turn to the question of falling rolls. I believe that falling rolls in the educational system present the opportunity for a much larger percentage of children to enjoy grammar school education. In my constituency of Rugby, which is part of the Warwickshire education committee's area, about 24 per cent. of children currently enjoy grammar school education. I do not doubt that as school rolls fall, that percentage will increase and even more children will enjoy the benefits of a grammar school education.
But we in Rugby also operate—and it is the general practice of Warwickshire county council—what I call the Warwickshire safety net, for in Rugby children have two opportunities of transferring to a grammar school. One occurs at the end of their first year and the second at the end of their fifth year, when they have taken their CSE and O-level examinations. This presents the opportunity of their transferring to grammar schools and being able to go on to take A-level examinations. The grammar school system as operated in Warwickshire is in no way a straitjacket system. It is quite the reverse.
I wish to make a special plea for Warwickshire and for a second wear my Warwickshire county council hat. Warwickshire has been hit hard. As a shire county, it has lost substantial amounts of revenue from rate support grants. In addition, it lost substantially on boundary reorganisation. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look in detail at Warwickshire when rate support grant is reassessed. It is a truly special case.
I believe that in terms of the rate support grant shire counties have a stronger case than metropolitan counties. Their services are spread over greater areas, they have the cost of funding village schools and the additional cost of larger road networks. They have a right to expect and, reasons to demand special privileges in the allocation of rate support grant.
I am a member of Warwickshire county council and its education committee. The system in that county operates reason

ably well. It is not perfect, but what system is? The system of selection that is operated, with its emphasis on examination and personal reports, is fair.
This Bill is about freedom—about less compulsion. It is not against comprehensive education. The hon. Member for Hillsborough has it wrong. He sees it as a devious Bill to undermine the comprehensive principle, and that is not so. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in opening the debate specifically said that those areas with comprehensive schools would continue with them. It is in no sense an attack on the comprehensive system. If local communities want comprehensive systems, well and good. Equally, if they wish to keep their proven grammar schools, those also should be maintained. That is what the Bill is about. It is about freedom and choice, and that is why I will support this Bill.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) beat my namesake in the election. I admired the tone of his speech but did not agree with a great deal of it. Although it was not his maiden speech, I am sure that we shall hear more from him in education debates.
I particularly disagreed with him when he said that the Bill is not against comprehensive education. If we are unlucky, this Bill and the resulting policies may prove to be a turning point in the steady progress that we have made in developing our education system since the 1944 Education Act. The Bill is reactionary, and we shall have to make good the destruction caused.
The Bill takes away one of the three criteria that the Minister and local education authorities have to consider in taking decisions about selection. The first criterion concerned age, ability and aptitude. The second concerned taking account of the wishes of parents. In 1976 we added a third criterion to those laid down by the 1944 Education Act. That was the need to ensure that children were educated in schools in which they were not divided by age, ability and aptitude. The Bill will take the third criterion away, but the Government have won an election and have every right to do that. If the Government insist on


adopting that approach they must have an alternative policy. At present they have none.
The criterion of age, ability and aptitude was put in the 1944 Act because there was then a general consensus that it was possible with reasonable equity to pick 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. of clever children for one sort of school and 75 per cent. of not-so-clever children for others. That belief was mainly founded on the research of Sir Cyril Burt. Subsequently, that was discovered to be completely pseudo-scientific and fiddled right along the line. I say no more of that.
As a result of that belief, many hon. Members and the civil servants who run the Department of Education and Science went to the grammar schools set up by that system. In 1944, there was a rash of new grammar schools to cater for the increased number of children born after the war.
After the 1944 Act, the consensus changed. The psychologists were shown to be wrong in their belief that children could be picked exactly. The sociologists showed us that even if children were picked reasonably fairly, generally the privileged children went to the grammar schools and the less privileged to the secondary modern schools.
Pressure from Conservative local authorities and often from Conservative parents abolished the 11-plus exam in local authority after local authority. That also happened in Labour local authorities but perhaps more slowly. They were more wedded to their grammar schools than the Conservative chairmen of education committees who in those days usually sent their children to public schools and did not mind about the State system.
In 1970 when the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State she failed to produce an alternative policy. The Government have failed to do that on this occasion. In 1970, the right hon. Lady withdrew circular 10/65 and the Government are now repealing the 1976 Education Act. That is a negative policy. They have not positively stated their criteria for future secondary education.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said that picking 25 per cent. of youngsters for grammar schools was too large a percentage and that 10 per

cent. was all right. That is an interesting opinion, but I should like to know the opinion of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). If the Government are returning to selection, they must say what the proper percentage of youngsters for selection should be. Without that, local authorities, parents and teachers will not know where they are. With youngsters switching from one authority to another it will be extremely difficult and there will be absolute chaos.
Between 1944 and 1970, when it was decided that grammar schools should remain, they were frequently planned for about 15 per cent. of the age group affected. Massive parental pressure to get youngsters into grammar schools often raised that figure to as high as 35 per cent. In the 1960s—when I was a Member for a Birmingham constituency—before it went comprehensive Birmingham was selecting 35 per cent. of the age group to go to grammar schools. If London had not gone comprehensive one of its problems, particularly in the inner city areas, would have been that it would have been selecting 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or even 70 per cent. of the youngsters for grammar schools [Interruption.] That is not much fun for the 30 per cent. residue that are dumped in the remaining schools.
If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) wants to have a long conversation with one of his hon. Friends there are certain courtesies that should be observed in the House, and he should go outside. We all listened to his rantings. There are certain courtesies which he should now observe.
x
It is important for the Government to have a policy on education because they will soon receive a number of section 13 proposals. When the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education she refused to give any criteria for accepting or rejecting section 13 proposals. No local authority ever knew, when putting forward such a proposal for secondary education, whether it would be turned down or accepted. It was a complete caprice. It depended on how the right hon. Lady was feeling at the time. If the Government refuse once again to give the criteria for section 13 proposals this will herald another period like the early 1970s when Surrey, a Conservative council, had its proposals turned down by a


Conservative Government completely capriciously. This is no way to administer the education service—whether it is comprehensive or selective.
Unfortunately this is the history of the Tory Party in education. It goes right back to 1952 when the Tories won power after the 1951 general election. One of the earliest decisions Dame Florence Horsbrugh had to make was over Eltham Hill grammar school for girls when Kidbrooke comprehensive was being opened. Although many similar schemes in London has been accepted—the closure of a selective school in order to make way for a comprehensive school—Dame Florence said she would not close this grammar school. She refused to allow what London had hoped would be a showpiece comprehensive to operate properly as a comprehensive, taking all the girls in that area. Eventually the Government must face up to this issue. If they are considering selective schemes for secondary education they must decide on the proper percentage that they think right. Is it 5 per cent?
Many people—politicians, civil servants and others—believe that this Bill is the first step towards the re introduction of an elitist system in Britain. The combination of this Bill, and Tory policies on grammar schools, the freedom for local authorities to support independent schools and cutting down the amount of money available to the State system is a movement towards a system where one has, in the private and selective system wrapped up together, about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. of youngsters in Britain attending elitist schools with a much more enriched education than that which is available to the rest of the country.
This system has been advocated since the turn of the century by certain people. Sir William Alexander, now Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who was former chief education officer of Sheffield and former secretary of the associated education committees, advocated this 5 per cent. selection system immediately after the Second World War as a means of trying to solve our post-war problems. The hon. Member for Wokingham said that 25 per cent. was socially unacceptable, but he did not believe that people in Wokingham would mind very much if only 10 per cent. of their youngsters were picked for a particular elitist system. This, together with

the Government's policy on top salaries and a whole range of other matters, looks like the beginning of a policy to attempt to reintroduce or deliberately engineer a new elite in Britain with a particularly privileged and enriched education as some sort of doctrinaire method of solving our problems.
The fascinating thing about the last election is that the Conservatives were the doctrinaire people. It was the Labour Party which put forward policies based on experience. I do not think that in any other field has the Conservative doctrinaire attitude to policy formation come out more than in education. The Tories can pretend that this is a matter of local authority freedom. The test of whether this Bill is about local authority freedom will come when Tameside puts its plans in to the Department of Education and Science. We shall then see the reaction of the Department to the section 13 applications from Tameside and other local education authorities. If, as I suspect, they get the same sort of treatment from the Secretary of State as they had from the present Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State, the whole hypocrisy of the Bill will be out in the open and the idea that it has anything at all to do with local authority freedom will be proved completely false. I very much fear that the subsequent legislation we shall have will simply show up little by little the Conservatives' plan for attempting, in a wholly doctrinaire way, which is not based on local authority experience, to reintroduce by social engineering an elite in this country. They think, quite wrongly, that this is some sort of solution to the problems of our country. I hope that that does not happen.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey). I understand that he made his maiden speech the other day, but it is a great pleasure to have another new hon. Friend talking about education.
It was with considerable dismay and sadness that I listened to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) for whom I have respect. He is still talking in the same manner as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), for whom I see little hope.

Mr. Flannery: Thank God for that.

Mr. Shelton: I do not propose to spend much time on the speech of the hon. Member for Hillsborough, because my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) dealt with it. I would only say that I am sure that he is indeed an hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he has, in general, the same view of us. I can only suppose that he has not listened to what my hon. Friends and I have been saying time after time after time, year in year out, for the past nine years. Had he listened he could not stand up and say that the Conservative Party has a hatred of comprehensives. He says that when, in the same breath, he is saying that Conservative education authorities have installed more comprehensives—Labour comprehensives according to his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, although the Prime Minister approved many comprehensive schools. I can only suppose that he has not had the fortune to listen to what has been said in the debate. We do not have a hatred of comprehensives but we have a hatred of bad schools.
We like good comprehensives, good grammar schools and any sort of good school. That is the criterion—if it is a good school we are for it; if it is a bad school we are against it.

Mr. Flannery: In the face of the Bill the long struggle that the Conservative Party has put up against comprehensive education and the sort of speech made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—every word of which breathes hatred of comprehensive education—either the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) must denounce that sort of speech or he must admit that it is a speech that has the philosophy of the Tory Party deeply embedded into it.

Mr. Shelton: I am sure that it is not unparliamentary language to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is the Don Quixote of the Conservative Benches, putting up windmills at which he tilts. I have never heard a larger list of imaginary targets that he has attacked with such verve. I suggest that he clears his mind of dogma and reads the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield tomorrow.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, the Bill is less

about education and more about freedom. It is the first Bill—rushed through quickly—to remove the compulsion of dogma. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said, in a speech on education that should unite the House—we all have the same objectives, although we disagree about the methods for reaching those objectives—that the Bill is a Bill of dogma. The Bill merely gives freedom to local people to decide on the sort of education that they want. For the House to say that those people should not have the freedom is, first, arrogant and, secondly, contemptuous of the judgment of local authorities and people, in the same way that to deny the sale of council houses is contemptuous of the judgment of local people.
Power may reside ultimately in this place but if we are not to be arrogant, and if we are to govern the country in the best way possible, we should pass as much power as we can to those who know about the problems—the parents. We have heard that a parent's charter and a local authorities' charter will be incorporated in the Bill later in the session. The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that a parent's charter is a hollow-sounding phrase. I should be delighted to let him have half a dozen or so specific points that I am sure will be incorporated in the legislation. I am sure that the same points, to some extent, would have been incorporated by the Labour Party had it remained in government.
The object of the Bill is to preserve good schools if the local people believe that they should be preserved. If the Tameside local authority puts forward a good scheme I do not doubt that it will be approved—provided it improves the quality of education. That will not be a matter of organisation. We have been mesmerised for too long by the problem of organisation.
I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West that that problem of dogma comes from the Labour Benches. In the view of Labour Members education is a matter of social engineering. There have been many debates on education in the House and yet we have hardly discussed what goes on in schools; we have discussed only the social engineering aspects of the way in which the schools are organised. It is time that we moved


away from that point of view and discussed the real problems that are coming to light.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hillsborough will not misunderstand me when I say that there are so many comprehensives in this country—although I welcome the good ones—that we are now starting to see the problems that exist in them. It is particularly true of the "allthrough" comprehensives in the inner urban areas—the 11–18 years schemes. Those problems should have been discussed and considered before the introduction of the 1976 Act. However, the Act was produced in a rush of dogma and now some of the problems are being revealed.
The main problem is summed up by saying that if the comprehensive is large enough for 15 options to be produced at sixth-form level it is unmanageable in the sort of area that I represent—and if the comprehensive is small enough to be manageable there is an insufficient range of options available at sixth-form level. It is a dilemma that local education authorities and hon. Members will have to resolve. I do not believe that it will be solved by making comprehensives smaller. We shall have to examine the experiments that are taking place—thank heavens—in the middle-school system, the sixth-form colleges and centres and the campus system. Those experiments will have to be examined to see how the problem of sixth-form organisation can be solved.
I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) on the Front Bench. It is also a pleasure to take part in an education debate from the Government side of the House. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North that if the Department of Education and Science can more fully monitor what is going on throughout the country and let the education authorities and hon. Members know the good and bad results the Department will contribute much more than it has in the past to deliberations in the Chamber and in town halls throughout the country. Although I have taken a deep interest in education for many years I am not aware, for example, of the results of the middle-school system studies that have been taking place in Merton and Morden.

I do not know if the results are good or bad, or if anybody is examining them. However, it would be of benefit if they could be known.
Another problem of comprehensive schooling is trunancy and absenteeism. Something must be done to solve the problem of absenteeism in my area, where it runs at 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. at fifth-form level. Truancy is running at about 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. I believe that the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 has contributed partly to the problem of truancy.
The local education authority and hon. Members have a duty to look carefully at the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North knows my concern about the problem of banding in the inner London education authority. Not all hon. Members may be familiar with that term, because it is specific to inner London. It is a form of bussing according to ability. In theory, each school in the London area has 25 per cent. of its pupils in the top band, 50 per cent. in the middle and 25 per cent. at the bottom. I understand why authorities want to act in that way, because to some extent it avoids the poor neighbourhood school in a very poor area.
I was interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), who said that this kind of banding was wrong. He said that he was a neighbourhood school man and thought that such schools should stick together. That system has its problems; on the other hand, the difficulty about banding lies in the injustice that it creates. I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that it is the bright child in band I who faces the greatest difficulty. Because band 1 fills up first, the parent tells his Member of Parliament "Johnny cannot get into the school he wants to attend, because he is too bright." However, he adds "Jimmy has got into that school because there are vacancies in band 3".

Mr. Flannery: Absolute claptrap.

Mr. Shelton: I am talking of the Inner London education authority, and it is true of that area. If the hon. Gentleman will speak to me after the debate, I will show him the figures relating to the fifth form. I am referring not to school absenteeism


in general, but to absenteeism in the fifth form. That figure is running as high as 40 or 50 per cent., which means that truancy is running at about 30 or 40 per cent. That is true of the school of which I am a governor, and we had a special discussion on this point at a governors' meeting only two weeks ago. Therefore, the hon. Member for Hillsborough might now wish to withdraw his sedentary comment.
Banding in the Inner London education authority is as I described it. The top band fills up first and the bright child cannot get admission to the school of his first choice because he is brighter than the boy who lives next door in band two or band three, and there is a vacancy in those bands. Therefore, they will take the one boy in band 3, but will not take the other boy in band 1. This is seen as a great injustice by the parents of the brighter child. They take the view "Our boy cannot obtain the school of his choice because he has worked hard." I understand what they mean by that comment.
I hope that later in the year we shall carefully examine the principle of banding. I am very ambivalent on the subject. I understand why it is being carried out, and I see the difficulties in the system, but I come down on the side of parental freedom and choice. I believe that this kind of social engineering results in a reduction of parental freedom and choice. I very much hope that we shall be able to take steps to alleviate the situation when we discuss later legislation.
I shall take great pleasure this evening in supporting the Bill. It reverses past dogma. To pass a Bill in 1976 insisting on compulsory education was as close to dogma in education as anything I know. By repealing that earlier legislation, I consider that we are now repealing dogma.

8.14 p.m.

Miss Joan Maynard: The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) spent a good deal of time explaining that only the Conservatives have taken the lead in introducing comprehensive education. In fact, we know that the Conservative Party has always opposed comprehensive education. This Bill indicates once again the strength of that opposition. Therefore, they cannot

have things both ways. The Bill may look innocent, but I believe it to be a piece of naked class legislation, typical of the class nature of the present Government.
A wonderful lady once sat on the Labour Benches representing Jarrow. Her name was Ellen Wilkinson. She said that Tories do not preach class war because they are much too busy practising it. We have seen a lot of this attitude in the present Government in the short time they have been in office.
I believe that this Bill will divide the nation by allowing certain people to opt out of the comprehensive system. I believe that the comprehensive system is supported by the vast majority of the population because of the results it has achieved both educationally and socially. I do not accept the view of Conservative spokesmen that comprehensive education is a threat to liberty and learning. I believe that exactly the opposite has been true in respect of most of the nation's children.
I agree that there are members of every party who support comprehensive education. However, one must add that the Conservative Party has always opposed comprehensive education. My closest experience with comprehensive education was in the old North Riding of Yorkshire, now referred to as North Yorkshire. I was a member of the education committee in that area for a period of nine years. That education committee was similar to this House in that there was hardly a member of that committee who sent his child to the State schools. Nevertheless, its members decided the policy for that area.

Mr. Flannery: Disgraceful.

Miss Maynard: In a similar sense we now have an Oxbridge-dominated House of Commons.
Thirsk was one of the first places to have a comprehensive school. That happened not because the Conservative-controlled council supported comprehensive education, but because, on economic grounds, it could not justify the building of another school and having, as it were, a small grammar school and a secondary modern. That council settled for a comprehensive school.
What were the effects of that new comprehensive school, which was opposed by the whole of the staff of the old grammar school, who did their best to stop it? In a social sense, it united the district because all its inhabitants had to send their children to that school at 11-plus. Its educational achievements were much greater than any achievements of the old, small grammar school. The B-stream had much better results than the old A-stream in the grammar school had ever achieved. It found abilities among children who in the past had been thought to have no ability and it helped those children to develop their potential to the full. This is what education must be about. It must develop the potential of the individual and must not merely train people to pass examinations or merely to run this complicated society of ours. It should not merely train children how to get a good job, which means a better paid job; in other words, it should not fit them merely to join the rat race. Education must seek to develop the whole person.
The size of our first comprehensive school meant that for the first time we had a sixth form with a real choice of subject. I accept that some comprehensives can be too large and impersonal, but that is an argument about size rather than about the comprehensive principle. The comprehensive system widened the horizons of village children who had been mainly, apart from the few who were creamed off to grammar schools, been confined within the village to the all-age village schools.
I am untypical of this place. I went to an all-age village school and left at 14. I do not suppose that many hon. Members have that kind of educational background. Going to a bigger comprehensive school is a shock after the small all-age village school but it allows children to see, once they have settled down, that there is a bigger, wider world offering different choices from those they had seen when they attended the all-age village school.
Comprehensives have proved that it was wrong to decide the educational future of a child at the age of 11. Comprehensives have also proved that IQs do not stand still. They can, and do, rise, given the right stimulus, in the same way that they fall when children are dis

couraged and find themselves in the wrong environment. Our complicated, modern, materialistic and industrial society creates many stresses and strains, nowhere more so than in family life. Schools have to try to cope with these new problems. They have to take on new responsibilities, particularly at secondary school level.
To disrupt the present system when it is beginning to settle down is criminal. The comprehensive system is not perfect. We are learning all the time. I am against streaming. To my mind, that is reintroducing selection all over again. Some schools are moving away from rigid streaming to setting. A smaller number of schools are trying to upstream the systems they operate. Those are steps in the right direction.
This Bill will put back the clock in the name of freedom of choice. We know, in reality, that only a very few people will have any real choice.
I would like to raise a point that has not been satisfactorily answered. I do not recollect any freedom of choice on the question of the sale of council houses. Local authorities are to have no freedom of choice. We are told that on the educational issue local authorities will have a freedom of choice. We shall have to wait and see. On the council house question—when it is a case of municipal assetstripping—there is to be no choice. When it is educational privilege for a few, that means choice for a few and no choice and a worse service for the majority.
Only the snobs and the selfish will welcome this Bill. The grammar school has some good traditions that we have tried to incorporate in our comprehensive system. Let us share the good things and not restrict them to the few. The grammar school also has some serious limitations. Sometimes, its excessive zeal to get children through examinations has led to impoverishment of the rest of the syllabus. The purpose of a comprehensive school is to educate all the children, not just some of the children. Surely, that must be good not only for the children but also for our society.
A. S. Neil, a great pioneer in education, said:
The first thing is to love the child. The second thing is to be for the child.
This Bill meets neither of those criteria. It is, as I have said, an attempt to put


back the clock. We, on the Labour Benches, shall oppose it all along the line. We shall do more than that. We shall mobilise people outside the House against this Bill. I do not believe that will be a difficult task.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Until 3 May I was chairman of the education committee of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. That is one of the bodies to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred in his opening remarks. It is therefore with considerable pleasure that I welcome the Bill so soon in the life of this Parliament. It seeks to do something for which I have stood for a long time, namely, to preserve and strengthen local democracy. It is that, and that alone, which I believe is before the House today.
We are not here to talk about the merits of comprehensive education. We are here to talk about whether local authorities should have the right to determine what they do for themselves. It was therefore with considerable dismay and surprise, matched only by my delight at the honour recently accorded to him, that I heard the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). The right hon. Gentleman is, I know, a great friend of local government, and I had therefore hoped that he would understand how important it is to our local authorities that they should have this freedom.
It is and must remain the right of local education authorities, having weighed all the local considerations, to decide what form of secondary education is best for their area. They are the best people to decide it. They are in touch with local opinion. I suggest, with respect, that it is not for us in this place to impose a system on local authorities.
I am not, and the Conservative Party is not, against comprehensive education. What I am against is the compulsory imposition of any system of education against the wishes of a local authority.
Perhaps I can best illustrate that principle by a brief reference to my own former local authority, where there is a variety of systems under the umbrella of the one authority. We have middle school systems and we have a selective system.

We have an admirable opportunity to compare the two. It is a matter of fact, whether we like it or not—perhaps this picks up some of the points that we have heard in earlier speeches—that some of the results that are coming out of the secondary modern schools in the selective area are infinitely better than some of the results coming out of the comprehensive schools within the same local education authority area, and people in those areas say "We do not want to change."
Admittedly, all comparisons are to some degree odious, but that is a comparison that can be made within one authority area, and it is a fair comparison. The Wirral local authority has therefore said "We want to decide when, and if, change should come", and it will be one of the authorities in this country which will give a wholehearted welcome to the Bill.
As I have said, the debate seems to have gone somewhat off the subject. We have spent a good deal of time listening to speeches about comprehensive education and we have heard prejudices being paraded in the Chamber. But as some of the uncertainties facing local authorities have been removed, or will be removed upon the enactment of the Bill, there remain even greater uncertainties facing our education system, and the House should be addressing itself to these matters, not indulging in the sterile argument about comprehensive education.
It is a matter of fact—I speak with some authority on this subject—that as 85 per cent. of children in secondary education are already in comprehensive schools, in no way would either the Conservative or local education authorities contemplate another major upheaval. We are not talking about undoing what has been done. What we stand for as a party is evolutionary change in education, not revolutionary change. Political dogma and educational shortsightedness have together, I believe, obscurred the real issues which we should be considering for the future of education in this country. It is not systems and not labels for schools but the purpose of education that is important.
Education does not exist for politicians, for teachers or for administrators—and not even for the DES. As we all know, it is a means of equipping children with


the basic skills to cope with life as it really is today and as it is likely to be in the near future.
What we fail to appreciate is that unless we turn our minds to what is happening within our education system and within our schools we shall fail the children who are there and who will shortly go out into society. We must examine closely every facet of our education system. We must ask ourselves two simple questions: Is it relevant to the needs of the individual child? Is it relevant to the needs of a changing society? That is what the great debate should be about. Sadly, too often the answer to those questions must be: No, it is not relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), in a recent article, referred to good jobs going begging because our youngsters lack the skills to fill them. In a television programme last year reference was made to an area of high youth unemployment where there were vacancies for 400 design engineers, yet there were not the young people with the training and skills to fill them. I am not talking of isolated cases. They occur in too many places. We must question the relevance and realism of our education system.
There is much talk of microtechnology and other aspects of our changing society which necessitate a fundamental rethink of our educaton system and the curriculum in schools. Already there are too many on the youth unemployment register. Youth unemployment is increasing and will continue to increase. It could be the most serious problem for this country for the remainder of the century unless something is done about it now. People who are unemployed for too long rapidly become unemployable. We must not allow that to happen.
We must ensure that the curriculum of schools reflects local needs. We know from statistics that the majority of children will live and work within a 50-mile radius of their school. The skills taught by a school must reflect the opportunities that exist in the area for school leavers.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Will my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) explain his proposals for

curriculum changes in comprehensive schools so that I can explain them to my constituents?

Mr. Thornton: I propose to do little other than to talk to people in the area This issue must be decided by the local education authority in consultation with the head teacher of the school in question. That is the way in which education works. If the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) thinks that it works in any other way, he shows an ignorance of the system.
It is unfair to expect our education system to remain unchanged. It is unfair to the children, because children are conditioned by what they are taught in our schools. If there is no reflection in the schools of present and future job opportunities, the expectations of children will be raised to an unrealistic level and their expectations will be dashed on the cold realities of chronic youth unemployment.
When we talk about education, we must look at where we direct our attention. Perhaps it is too late to do anything with the 15 and 16-year-olds. Perhaps we should be looking at the input at an earlier age. There is hard evidence that with stronger links with industry and commerce, and with an input at the age of 12 or 13, much can be done to inject a note of realism into our education system.
That means that attitudes must change. Education must be flexible. It must have within itself infinite variety and infinite opportunities. This is why I spoke earlier about evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. It is not a coincidence that 85 per cent. of our children are in comprehensive schools. I believe that had it not been for compulsion many of the ills that exist in the comprehensive system today would not be there, because its development would not have been hurried along so quickly. Matters would have taken their own course, and I believe that that is the way in which we must allow the remainder of our system to adapt to a changing society.
What, then, of the future? I hope that all who are interested in the real purposes of education, and in the welfare of and future opportunities for our children will apply to their thinking an ingredient which has been sadly lacking. That ingredient is common sense. It


makes sense to ensure that our primary schools teach basic skills such as literacy and numeracy. It makes sense to see our secondary schools offering wide-ranging opportunities to all. It makes sense to see that colleges, polytechnics and universities provide courses, retraining or whatever is necessary.
It is complete nonsense if the education system is so blinkered in its attitudes—whether by political dogma or unrealistic educational thinking—that it fails to see what is happening around it. It has been said in this debate that education is a means to an end and not an end in itself. What we call the system, or the schools, is unimportant. What is important is what happens to the children while they are part of that system. Even more important is how well that system equips them to cope with life at the end of the day.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: Perhaps this debate should not be about the broad issues of education policy though we have heard many speeches which have dwelt on that point. I shall make one observation on the broad issues, and then try to concentrate the attention of the House on the practical effects of this proposed legislation.
I found it interesting that during the debate Conservative Members have praised grammar schools and rarely criticised comprehensive schools and that Labour Members have praised comprehensive schools. Neither side has praised, or stood up for, the secondary modem system. That is a fact. We have had virtually no discussion about the secondary modern system even though the selection system is not a grammar school system, but a secondary modern one. That is the truth of the matter for 80 per cent. of our children. Yet on behalf of that 80 per cent. we have had no discussion whatever today. We have heard nothing about the merits of the secondary modern system or about its problems and difficulties. It is shameful that when this Bill is brought before the House there is no serious discussion of, and virtually no reference to, the education implications for 80 per cent. of our children in respect of selection procedures.
I shall oppose this Bill because my constituency of Batley and Morley con

tains an area which has retained selection. My constituency has one of those odd features where part of it has comprehensive schools—well-liked and effective for 100 per cent. of the children—and yet in Batley, by a quirk of history, we have selection.
Batley is even more difficult for people to understand because not only do we have selection but the Roman Catholic children can obtain comprehensive education by choice by going into the neighbouring town of Dewsbury. I am delighted for them. But the remaining children face a fee-paying independent boys grammar school and a State girls grammar school, with two large secondary modern schools alongside them.
This debate is not about the individual merits of schools. In every school the teachers, pupils and parents do their utmost to produce the very best that the school can produce. Criticism of a system should never be confused with criticism of individual schools. In my township of Batley secondary modern schools do a magnificent job in all the circumstances. We are concerned not about the individual schools but about the systems and their problems.
I do not believe that it is fair to leave 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the children of the town of Batley with no choice. Instead of choice for the parents or children a decision is imposed on the children at the early age of 11. Furthermore, the teachers, governors and managers in the State schools have overwhelmingly supported the introduction of the 11–18 comprehensive school system in my town of Batley.
Conservative Members have said that the Bill is not about the comprehensive system versus the grammar school system. That may or may not be true in their eyes, but that is what it will mean to the community. The Bill was welcomed by the Conservative-controlled district council, which saw it not as something that simply gave it the opportunity to discuss the matter but rather as an excuse to keep the grammar schools.
The education committee of the Kirklees district council met today for the first time since the Bill was published. I was told in a written answer on 22 May that the authority would be asked whether it wished to withdraw or proceed with the


schemes that it submitted in the spring of this year. I have spoken on the telephone to members of the education committee since it met today. That committee, governed by the Conservative majority, steadfastly refused to put on the agenda the question of the comprehensive position. Moreover, it even refused to report the fact that the Secretary of State had written to the authority.
Conservative Members may not wish the Bill to be used as an excuse to deny choice, but rather wish it to generate discussion of the options. But in practice I have already heard of the consequences in my constituency this very day. They are that the controlling group has refused to discuss, and even to report, the Secretary of State's letter to the authority. That is one of the reasons why we are concerned about deadlines. It is clear that the deadline may be abused rather than used.
For the rest of my time I should like to be constructive. My concern is to consider what will happen if the Bill goes through. I shall oppose it, but I am realistic enough to know that the Bill is likely to be enacted. What will happen when the Bill is enacted? I address three or four questions to the Government Front Bench to seek clarification.
First, is it true that the authority of Kirklees has been asked whether it wishes its spring submissions to stand, and which of the two it prefers?
Secondly, it would help enormously in the consideration of the issues if the Conservative Front Bench, and the Secretary of State especially, were to say loud and clear that they believe that comprehensive schools are as good—I should say better—as the grammar-secondary modern system. That would clear a great deal of air. There was an impression created in the pre-election and post-election periods that the Bill would be aimed at retaining grammar schools. If the Secretary of State wishes to encourage genuine debate and open discussion in each individual authority, he should make it clear to authorities that he wishes each community to be aware of the benefits of the comprehensive system and genuinely to consider them when making a decision.
Thirdly, and importantly, I believe that the authority of Kirklees will support the comprehensive principle because there is Conservative minority control. The full council may decide to proceed with a comprehensive system. How will the Sec-secretary of State react to any comprehensive proposals? The implementation of this measure will clearly be judged on the response of the Secretary of State and the Conservative Government if comprehensive schemes are submitted. I hope that I shall have an assurance that if such a scheme is submitted it will be treated with due speed and that the authority will be given every encouragement.
Finally, I come to finance. Money is involved in any comprehensive scheme of reorganisation. If the choice, freely expressed by the overall council of an area, is to introduce a comprehensive system, the issue of finance will be raised. In those circumstances I ask the Government Front Bench if it will agree to meet a delegation of the Kirklees district council, including myself, to discuss ways of implementing the freely made choice of that authority. That is clearly most important.
I hope that the Bill is defeated. It is appalling when a small township in West Yorkshire, an area of two million people—I would not call it an oasis but a small desert island—is deprived of a comprehensive system.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) said that he hoped the Bill would not be enacted. I have news for him. I am normally regarded as being on the left-hand side of the Tory Party—it depends on which direction one looks at me—but I intend to support the Bill, so I am sure it will be enacted.
It is a good Bill. It is worth noting, however, that it does not achieve everything that is necessary in education. I shall refer to some of its omissions, which may appear in Committee or in a subsequent education Bill. I reinforce the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) about selection in reverse. The Inner London education authority is one of the pioneers of comprehensive schools and the abolition of the 11-plus. In my constituency, and in


many other inner London ones, there are families who say "We have encouraged our children at primary school"—which is clearly the right attitude—"and we have worked in co-operation with the teachers at the primary schools"—which again is clearly the right attitude—"yet our child cannot get into the school of our first choice because he has come out with a grade 1."
One can understand the reasons for trying to achieve a balanced intake at secondary school, but it is perverse to have a system which basically encourages parents to tell their child, during the last year in primary school, when there are tests which are just as influential as the 11-plus, to write across the front, "I hate skool", so that he will be graded grade 3 and be sent to the school of their choice. I hope that the Department will encourage the ILEA and other education authorities to consider that system. I do not have a simple answer to the issue, but it is far more important in inner London than giving extra freedom to the ILEA, which will not take it to withdraw schemes to go fully comprehensive.
The Bill does not deal with examinations for children who are not likely to take O-levels or to do particularly well at CSE. O-levels are geared to the top 20 per cent. in the fifth form, CSEs to the next 40 per cent. although many schools get more children through. What is the target for a child who will not succeed in the conventional academic sense? At the moment, he is asked to look ahead four or five years to an examination that he is not likely to pass—and then we wonder why there is so much truancy in the third, fourth and fifth forms.
For the basic education—not just in primary school but, for many children, through secondary school as well—we need to have progressive standards in the same way as applies in the boy scouts or the brownies or in music or swimming. We should say "This is grade 1, which you might be able to achieve in six weeks or in six months, but that is the standard that you are aiming for. However, you will take it when you are ready and then you can move up." That might underpin the CSE system.
The Bill is just an agenda for a subsequent Bill. Although it is necessary,

there are more important things in education than to have a fight about whether we have a comprehensive system or whether we insist that every school is a comprehensive school. I thoroughly believe in allowing education authorities to have a comprehensive system which will deal with all the children, rather than insisting that there is a nameplate outside each gate saying "Comprehensive School" so that people are dumped in there willy-nilly, whether it is mixed ability or whatever.
For the last four years, while I have been the Member for Woolwich West, families have been saying the same things to me about the same schools—the reason for their first choices or why many of them will not accept a particular school. What are education authorities doing about these parental opinions?
Instead of waiting until March each year and then suddenly saying, "Sorry, but we have redrawn the catchment area because another school has become more popular", why do they not say to families two or three years in advance "Which school, at the moment, do you believe you will choose for your child when he reaches the 11-plus age, and why"?
I have been the governor of a comprehensive school, as many hon. Members have, for many years. No education authority has ever told us "The reason why parents are not choosing your school is that you have streaming, or mixed ability, or there is no discipline." Not one hon. Member of the many to whom I have spoken has said that that has happened.
We are throwing away parental views and wishes. Politicians, education councillors, even teachers do not have the right to say to parents, the full-time guardians of children "We know what is best. Give us your child at five years old and we will deliver him back at 16 and never care about what happens in between." We must get parents more involved. The Bill helps to involve education authorities more. The next step is to work with parents in the school so that more of them are satisfied more often.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Some hon. Members seemed puzzled when the Secretary of State referred to the fact that Tameside was in


my constituency. One-third of my constituents live in Manchester. The rest live in Tameside. Those in Tameside have not bragged about it too much in the past three years.
In the Manchester part of my constituency there are three comprehensive schools. One is purpose-built. It was included in the pamphlet on 10 good schools which was published by the Department of Education and Science. The second school is a Roman Catholic comprehensive school which, in spite of social problems, is going well. It went comprehensive fairly recently.
There is another fine school, which serves the area well. It is an outstanding school in the provision of academic, cultural and physical education and in the work that it does with the community. I refer to Spurley Hey school, which the Under-Secretary of State once described as a "sink" school. He had not seen it when he said that. I think that he regrets making that remark. The headmaster, the staff, the parents and pupils combined to show the media and the public how wrong he was.
For a good many years I campaigned against 11-plus selection and the segregation of children into different types of schools at the age of 11.
Immediately after the war I taught in primary, all-age and secondary schools in Manchester, where there was a system of grammar, technical and secondary modern schools, in the proportion 15 per cent., 15 per cent. and 70 per cent. It was obvious that social deprivation and family background were major criteria in success or failure at 11-plus. Indeed, they still are at O and A levels. Administrators and teachers spent many hours and days discussing methods of selection and in examining in English, arithmetic and intelligence. The last subject appeared on some of the timetables in the Tameside school.
There were also recommendations by teachers' panels and head teachers. In the end we asked ourselves "What are we selecting for? Is there a definition of the grammar school child, the technical school child or the secondary modern school child?" The answer was "No". Selection was made to fill a number of

places based on a pre-war idea of the numbers of pupils who should go into those schools. However, by the 1950s, the number varied all over the country—5 per cent., 10 per cent., and 25 per cent. In parts of Wales I understand that the figure was 50 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), especially in view of the 7 June result, must reckon that the Welsh have a high intelligence.
The results showed that there was no criterion for a grammar school child. The system distorted primary school education in the inner cities—where many children, as a result of their backgrounds, had little hope—and in the suburbs. In one of my local schools it was almost inevitable that the A stream, which was selected in the infants' section, would go to the grammar school and that the B stream would go to a secondary modern school.
In one year a child did not make the grade. I tried to persuade the mother that it would not make much difference. She said 'What worries me is the neighbours and other children talking as though my child were deaf". Anyone who has taught in a secondary modern school knows that such children regard themselves as branded as failures. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) was right to bring up that point. Secondary modern schools had not been mentioned. There was no campaign by members of the Conservative Party to save the secondary modern schools. We know how difficult it is to get rid of a sense of failure. That takes pupils a long time, even in good secondary modern schools. Selection systems are inaccurate. That has been admitted.
The plight of children transferred from secondary modern to grammar schools—there were not many—in the second or third year has usually been very difficult. By the early 1960s authorities of all political shades were moving away from the selective system. I do not accept the view that many Conservatives did not approve and accept the comprehensive principle. They did. Certainly many of them in rural areas adopted it ages ago. It was generally accepted in educational and, to some extent, political circles by the 1960s that the abolition of the 11-plus examination and the introduction of comprehensive education would proceed


apace. Certainly the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), a former Prime Minister, accepted it. Perhaps all his then Ministers did not.
When the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State, I asked her, during Question Time, what her views were on 11-plus selection, and she said that she had no opinion. I hope that the Secretary of State will not use that answer.
What has happened in the Conservative Party since that time? Was it the Black Papers? Was it the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), or the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), touring the country? Was it the outstanding success of Councillor Grantham, at the Tory Party conference? Councillor Grantham, incidentally, was the Tory leader on the Tameside council and I shall mention him later.
This Government have no policy on secondary education or 11-plus selection. This Bill, trying to carry through an electioneering slogan of "Save the grammar schools", will create chaos and instability, particularly in Conservative-controlled areas that have gone comprehensive. We know how the hon. Member for Macclesfield will be attacking the chairman of Cheshire education committee. Chairmen and members of education committees will be under heavy pressure.
I turn briefly to Tameside. There are those who have accused the new Labour council of Tameside of rushing into comprehensive education. Before 1974 the borough was partly in Lancashire and partly in Cheshire. In the five districts in Lancashire, after discussions with a Tory-controlled Lancashire county council in 1964, a working party was set up and a scheme for comprehensive schools for pupils from 11 to 16 years of age, with sixth-form colleges, was approved by the entire council and teaching profession. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield is not present to hear this, but in the Hyde and Longendale area, a system of comprehensive education, including a number of purpose-built schools, was approved in 1969 and a great deal of that type of building took place. In the Dukinfield and Stalybridge area, the Cheshire county council submitted a scheme to the Government for combining

secondary modern and grammar schools into comprehensives for 11 to 18-year olds.
By 1974, the new council again set up a working party and reviewed the whole system because of the difference of opinion. It presented a scheme for comprehensive schools for 11 to 16-year-olds, with six-form colleges, for the whole of Tameside. It was accepted by the Government and the date for its implementation was to be September 1976. In May 1976 the Conservatives gained a majority. I do not need to describe the chaos that eventually resulted, with the selection examination taking place in August for admission to the schools in September.
The first opportunity that the people of Tameside had to re-elect councillors was last year. There was no doubt that education was the main subject on everyone's mind. It was not only everyone in Tameside who knew the points of view of all the candidates on education. Almost everyone in the country knew.
It was not a particularly good year for Labour, but Labour candidates took 15 seats and the Conservatives three. It was better than what occurred in Wigan and parts of South Wales. This year the Labour candidates took 14 seats and the Conservatives four, and there are now 36 Labour councillors and 18 Conservative councillors.
I believe that the new education committee has acted in a responsible manner. It has asked to meet the Secretary of State. I was very glad to hear today that although he has not heard officially—because the full council has not met—he will meet it. The new education committee will honour the arrangements made for entry into secondary schools this year—unlike its predecessor committee—but in 1980 and subsequent years it wants to make parents' choice its sole criterion. I hope that the committee gets the full support of the Government to do that.
Pupils who are already in sixth forms or going into them in September will be able to complete their course in their existing schools. Two of the grammar schools will eventually become sixth-form colleges.
The scheme for comprehensive education that the committee now submits is exactly the same as the one that it submitted, had accepted and had financial


allocation to carry out in 1976. The work has been carried out in a great many schools. Roughly £5 million has been spent, on a comprehensive basis. The staffs appointed in 1976—many of them are still there—are based on the fact that the schools should be comprehensive.
The Secretary of State said today that he must insist on the committee resubmitting the section 13 application. I hope that he will reconsider that matter. If it is absolutely legally necessary, I hope that he will realise that the objections that will arise will be over much prevously trodden ground.
The important thing is that parents, teachers and officials should know in ample time for next year just where they stand. I hope that the Secretary of State will give urgent consideration to the applications that come from Tameside.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: Only a very brief time is available to me. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) will forgive me for not following up his arguments. I wish merely to take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on introducing this measure so early in the life of this Parliament. This follows so encouragingly on the heels of the measures which we were promised and received in the Gracious Address and in the Budget. This is a unique example of a party honouring its pledges to the electorate.
This measure will give special pleasure in Buckinghamshire, part of which I have the honour to represent, because, as the House knows, Buckinghamshire has fought a valiant fight to preserve the selective system. It has fought it for the benefit of education as a whole.
Here I offer advice to Opposition Members who are concerned about the state of secondary modern schools. I invite them to come to Buckinghamshire, where they will find high standards not only in the selective schools but in the other schools too. If they care to refer to the results of the Institute of Mathematics test, published in January of last year, they will find that the secondary modern schools in Buckinghamshire scored far higher than any of the comprehensive schools in other parts of the country. This

is a splendid example of how freedom of choice, operating at the local level, works. This is what the Conservative Party stands for.
Therefore, whilst congratulating the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on his new and, perhaps, surprising appointment—he glories under the description, of which I am sure he is proud, of being a Left-winger—I hope that he will do the House and the country the service of taking this issue of choice and comprehensivisation out of politics. I may hope in vain, but I hope very much that we can all get back to the real problem—the problem of standards in education.
Even the Leader of the Opposition was forced to recognise this problem in his speech at Ruskin college in October 1976, when he launched the great debate, a debate which fizzled out. But then even he acknowledged that there were problems about standards of education. All who employ young people coming from our education system know that there are these problems. Therefore, I urge the House to help my right hon. and learned Friend to deal with these problems and to stop fighting the ideological battles of the 1960s.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I can set your mind at rest, Mr. Speaker. I am as likely to remove the question of comprehensive education from the sphere of political debate as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) is to send his children to a secondary modern school, a type of school which he so much admires.
The debate was set alight by the hon. Member. Until his remarks it had been a somewhat studious affair, apart from the intervention of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who brings the guile of a Panzer driver to these affairs.
We have been graced by two appealing maiden speeches, but I am filled with regret that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) replaces my close friend, comrade and fellow countryman, Bill Molloy. He was widely respected in this place for many reasons. I also regret that a younger close comrade and trade union brother of mine, Max Madden, has been replaced by the hon.


Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson)—or as I understand we are to pronounce it, "Sawby". We shall have difficulty over that, and if the hon. Gentleman will undertake to pronounce Bedwellty properly by the end of the Committee stage, I shall get down to Sowerby.
I also owe thanks to my right hon. and hon. Friends who in the past 24 hours have been extremely kind to me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) is credited with saying that a week is a long time in politics, but 24 hours seems a tremendously short time to me, especially to do what I am doing now.
I congratulate the maiden speakers with a special kind of fellow feeling, standing as I do on the 50-metre board looking down at the shallow end, not the deep end. I invite hon. Gentlemen to speculate on the physical consequences for me.
I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends, most notably those who have been kind enough to offer me their congraulations on my appointment. It was something of a surprise to me, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is full of little surprises. I am especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). As hon. Members will recognise, he has shown extraordinary generosity in the way that he regards my appointment. This is not the place to canvass for him. I do not want to damage the remainder of his career. I sincerely hope that the considerable talents demonstrated in his opening speech, which was a clinical destruction of the Secretary of State's speech, will be deployed usefully elsewhere.
I also extend my thanks to the Secretary of State for the generous remarks that he made about me. They were echoed to some extent by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who always makes an interesting contribution in any circumstances and any company. I regard the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman even though I know that they are utterly sincere, as a gift from the Greeks.
As one would expect, I distrust the Greeks—even more the Tories—bearing gifts. I saw the way that my former right hon. Friend Mrs. Shirley Williams was treated. She was lacerated politically whenever she espoused the cause of egali

tarianism and even more when she followed her principles and pursued trade union solidarity to the very gates of Grunwick. When the propaganda and poison intensively preached by the press during the general election got through, the electors of Hertford and Stevenage took note and threw her out. That same press and those same editors then dipped into the great cornucopia of hypocrisy reserved for such occasions and wrote dewy-eyed editorials about what a great loss she would be to public life. I regard the welcomes and blandishments with the credibility that they deserve, even though I acknowledge their sincerity.
I am also wary of the gifts of this Education Bill—and I use the word "education" extremely loosely. It is alleged to be about choice and removing compulsion. In a libertarian, pluralistic democracy the espousal of choice and removal of compulsion is recognised to be altogether endearing, attractive and laudable. In the words of the song "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it." Indeed, it is the purpose for which one does something and the way in which one goes about it which is important.
We must examine tortuously and thoroughly in Committee exactly what is meant by the extension of choice and the removal of compulsion. In reality this Bill has little to do with either. It is an attempt by the Conservative Government to find a means of enshrining a basic and deep rooted anti-comprehensive attitude. They have to do this somehow because they live in 1979—or some of them do—and because they have to deal with the realities of the age—or at least some of them try to. It is 35 years since the 1944 Act and the whole idea of selection has become disreputable and has been widely rejected. For all these reasons, the Tories cannot afford to espouse the cause of selection. They cannot openly take the step back to yesterday or protect the vested interests of the crustaceans in their party and in the local authorities. Therefore, they have to do it invisibly and this Bill is the invisible evidence which shows what they are trying to do.
The purpose of the Bill is not to extend choice or to remove compulsion. It is to secure, in the face of overwhelming opposition to selection, the aim of the Conservative Party—the classic aim of the maintenance, defence and advancement


of material privilege. That is what the Conservatives have always done and I do not expect them to surrender their birthright or their origins now. If they do they are even less honest than I give them credit for.
The appeal of this Bill is not to most parents or teachers, and certainly not to children. As a profiteer, as it were, from the 11-plus system, I went to what could only be described as a hyper-super-duper selective grammar school. It was not until I got into the non-selective or comprehensive part—the sixth form—that there was any freedom or integration of pupil and teacher instead of the relationship of master and man, and an element of democracy. At that stage we did participate and discuss. That was when I began to enjoy that school. Until then I am afraid that school was a regrettable experience for me and, I am sure, for my headmaster as well.
The Bill is not for pupils, parents or teachers. Therefore, who wants the Bill? Not the 78 per cent. of local education authorities which have comprehensive education. Not the 83 per cent. of pupils and parents who are now part of a non-selective educational system. Not the Liberal Party—and I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on his speech. Not the nationalist parties, not the Labour Party and, indeed, not even sections of the Tory Party. This is shown by the evidence from some of the more progressive strains in the Tory Party—particularly in educational terms—which indicates that this Bill is, at best, an irrelevance. The demand and support for the Bill does not even come from the Tory Party.
The Bill has been put together to serve the purposes of the 59 Tory-controlled LEAs which have managed to dodge, duck and delay long enough to survive civilisation and get beyond 3 May. The consequence is that they will wreak havoc with thousands of lives in their care. There are thousands of children who will not benefit—if that is the word—from the advantages of the schools that cream off the top children. Thousands of children, nevertheless, will have the last two years of their primary school life dominated by the great madness of the 11-plus examination. Thousands of children will know, when

the results are announced, the deep and poisoning frustration, and the depression and disappointment of being written off at 11 years of age. That is the fact of the matter.
Nobody who has observed a community that operates a selective 11-plus system can doubt that on the morning of the results there are not faces of schoolchildren wreathed in smiles at having encoutnered the examination. There are floods of tears in many homes. The guilt for those tears will remain on the backs of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues. [Interruption.]
Wild gesticulations by Conservative Members are not evidence to contradict the fact that those children are told that they are the victims of a competitive system, and that they are scarred and second-rate. No amount of compensation and reassurance can alleviate that. For many years those children will not come to terms with the fact that they are not second-class and will not be regarded as second-rate failures. It takes a great amount of therapeutic attention to compensate for that—time that would be better spent by teachers and parents in getting on with the job of education.
The only interests who want the Bill are those buried in the political permafrost of their own prejudice and privilege. They are the Tories who control various local education authorities. Such persons are frequently an embarrassment to many Conservatives, especially the more progressive strands of the party. However, they exist and they are easily identified. [An hon. Member: "Who are they?"] They are the ones who not only go to sleep but utterly fail to comprehend any of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). They enjoy living in a permanent yesterday. Indeed, the Prime Minister has even appointed a Minister especially to represent yesterday—the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the "Minister for Yesterday", from whom we shall be hearing later.
Now we have a Bill to protect yesterday. It is a remnant from a bygone educational age. The reason why there has been selection in the form that it has been, as my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) and Bolton, East


(Mr. Young) have pointed out, is that when it was introduced it was conceived as a progressive means of releasing working-class children in a meritocratic system from the material chains and disadvantages which bound them down. Thirty-five years on we recognise that in the nonselective systems of the remainder of the Western world and in this country where we see daily, weekly and yearly academic, sporting, cultural and communication standards rising among school children, elements of the Conseravtive Party wish to freeze us somewhere around June 1944.

Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that if, as he said, 83 per cent. of children are already in comprehensive schools, to get at the remaining 17 per cent. the Labour Government spent £26 million last year, in addition to £25 million in 1976–77, and £10 million was planned for this year, just to achieve that objective? Will that not distort the improvement in the quality of comprehensive schools, primary schools and others?

Mr. Kinnock: I spoke of progressive strains, and I know that the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) is under considerable strain, although I do not know whether it is progressive. It is apposite for the hon. Gentleman to remind the House of those figures. Looking back through the records I discover that when our education legislation was being debated the hon. Gentleman criticised the fact that £25 million was not being made available. What was being made available to the LEAs was loan sanction up to £25 million. I take the criticism because, within a couple of weeks after that, I was contradicting my right hon. Friends on the matter of public expenditure cuts. I hope that the hon. Member for Ripon will do the same thing in relation to his right hon. Friends.
This comes ill from a representative of a party which has not given loan sanction for £25 million, or £10 million, or minuscule amounts of that nature in pursuit of Tory education policy. If we rely on reports in the "Daily Torygraph", we discover that the Conservatives are not intending to spend loan sanctions of £25 million, but are envisaging a figure of £50 million on subsidising direct grant schools in order to send out the rich to become

more privileged. I am happy to debate the finances of education with the hon. Gentleman and anybody else, because there are a few skeletons that must be shaken out of the Tory cupboard. I intend to enjoy myself by following that entirely laudable pursuit.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Perhaps I may say, in passing, that we are enjoying the hon. Gentleman's wit, if not his vituperation. He will no doubt remember the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) and myself about the reverse selection in the inner London system, which creates tears. We are awaiting, I hope not in vain, for his condemnation of the practice.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall be condemning that practice tonight, and I shall be exploring the consequences. I fail to see how this Bill will rescue the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) from the terrible difficulties which they have encountered. I sympathise with the way in which they tried to represent the difficulties of their constituents. However, if the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the matter, and if the Conservative Front Bench shares that concern, rather than put this tawdry Bill before the House tonight, they should pursue a much more progressive way of trying to develop and improve the education system in our capital.
The juntas which pass for local education authorities and which have managed to hang on to selective education speak of choice. They are regarded by the Tory Front Bench as crusaders of choice and as prophets of freedom, but this selective system does not involve choice at all. It is not selection by the consumer, which is classically how we understand choice, but selection of the consumer. That is a different proposition altogether. It is not the entry into the free market by people with full information and material resources at their disposal who can make a supermarket choice between goods of approximately equal value. We are not talking of cars or cabbages or colour television. We are talking about people's lives. Those people do not have a choice. Those people are chosen. The remnants of that selective system will mean that only particular kinds of people will be chosen.
We are seeing a Tory system of choice. What we are seeing enshrined in this Bill is the box office economy applied to education. In that economy, choice is limited to those who can buy entrance. It is not the careful and discriminating decision of people to turn away from the door. It is not that kind of choice. It is not even a feckless unwillingness to sacrifice, as the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister frequently tells us her parents did, and as my parents did, so that choice can be exercised. It is not any of those things.
The reason why people do not exercise choice in this system is through sheer resignation to the fact that they cannot afford the entry fee. This means that the children of the well endowed homes start off with a much stronger chance of gaining access to the grammar school system than those from poor homes. Not content with that domestic advantage that some children can enjoy, there are the private schools, the "crammers" which are obligatory, in the last two years of primary education, for those children so that they can get themselves into the mainstream and on to the escalator into the local grammar school.

Mr. Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe in choice, what is he doing there tonight? He was not elected last week to that position in the Shadow Cabinet elections.

Mr. Kinnock: My lack of discrimination in choice is evidenced even more by the fact that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.
As long as there is a selective system in any area, the children of that area could have their whole lives scarred and frustrated through being born to the wrong parents. We, on the Opposition side, believe—I do not know if there is any agreement on the Tory side—that it is unforgivable and unsupportable that a whole life can be moulded simply because an atom chose to be a twinkle in the wrong father's eye. That is not a fair basis on which to decide. I do not believe that even the meritocrats on the Government side of the House would choose that system. But that is what it means when we boil down the system of selection into such a narrow region of prejudice.
That system is one of privilege in which the few, using the assets donated by the many, can ensconce themselves in perpetuity to remain as leaders and as top people or, as the Prime Minister might call them, the tall people. Here is a party now worshipping at the shrine of inequality as it has not done for a long time past and following the nostrum of the right hon. Lady—"Let our children grow tall"—a remark which would have done justice to John Wayne in one of his worst movies. "Let our children grow tall and some grow taller than others if they have it in them to do so." That is the dream of the Conservative Party—a society run by tall people for the advantage of tall people. The short people can put up with the tawdry and the second class.
It is what one expects from a party led by a Cabinet containing 22 people, 19 of them public school boys. The Cabinet is more thickly populated with public school boys than the free bar at Twickenham on international day. I must not knock public school boys too much. They will be sucking their thumbs and shouting for matron before we know where we are.
How much things have changed since this question was last debated in 1976. We were then berated by the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) for £25 million loan sanction. Whether that was because of its generosity or meanness, I am not sure. He did not like the idea. Since the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has graced us with his presence, he would expect me to do him the favour of quoting his ermine-lined words. He said:
The education service is facing unprecedented problems. We are facing drastic cutbacks in the rate of financial growth. We are seeing the demolition of the nursery programme"—
that must be why the Government have just taken another quarter off it—
which was so assiduously and far-sightedly planned by my right hon. Friend who is now Leader of the Opposition. We are seeing closures in colleges of education, cutbacks in the number of teachers and rising teacher unemployment
Things do not change much, do they?
We have seen the demoralising of the universities"—
I noticed a statement from the committee of vice-chancellors on Sunday much to that effect—
and other institutions of higher learning, and the collapse of confidence among millions of


parents over standards of learning and discipline in our schools. This is an extraordinary time to put forward a partisan, doctrinaire, and unwanted measure."—[Official Report, 4 February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 1233–4.]
I say "Aye" to that when it is applied to this Bill.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is not now in education. He is a collector of fine things—mainly, as far as I can make out, Government Ministries. He is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster He is Lord President of the Council. [Hon. Members: "No."] No, he is not that, but he is Leader of the House of Commons, he is Minister for the arts—and he is resident Cabinet jester. That is all on the arts side, of course, and the right hon. Genleman has left the crafts to the other three.
What we must assert to the Government—I hope that they will take this fully on board—is that they cannot protest their support for comprehensives and still try to breathe life into the grammar schools with this Bill. They must understand that the age of selection is outlived. It is passed. They cannot keep it alive.
The Government must understand that now is no time for the instability, the indetermination and the indecision which they will create. We are talking about Whole futures, whole careers, whole lives, and we have to uphold them. If the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends are really concerned about educational standards and the future of education in this country, they should rip up the Bill here and now.

9.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): First, I pay tribute to the education spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I do not suppose that I got the pronunciation of his constituency quite right. I have a one-quarter Welsh wife, and that is my only claim to be able to get these things anywhere near right. I think that the one thing that the hon. Gentleman and I have in common—I am sure that it is not our political views, and I hope that it is not the amount of bitterness in our souls either—is that we both spent time at University college, Cardiff. I spent a year there in the Royal Navy reading one of the subjects that the hon. Member read there. At least, I enjoyed

my time there, as I am sure we shall enjoy the hon. Gentleman's continued wit and leadership in the House.
I pay tribute also to my two hon. Friends who made their maiden speeches today. I refer, first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I am a godfather to his son, so I suppose I should declare an interest. The other godfather is Bishop Huddleston, so it is a really comprehensive godfathership. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson), whose maiden speech was, I know, much appreciated.
To me, the amazing feature of the debate is that, listening to it, one would think that the Bill was for the dissolution of comprehensive schools rather on the lines of action many years ago for the dissolution of the monasteries. In fact, as was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), all that the Bill does is to return freedom to local education authorities—with the agreement of their areas—to decide how they want to run the secondary schools in their areas. That is all it is.

Mr. Flannery: Claptrap.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member is an expert in claptrap. I am not sure what that interruption means, but I am pointing out that the Bill means that if certain areas want to keep their comprehensive schools, as we would expect the vast number of areas to wish to do, they can keep them. Nobody is taking them away. Similarly, if certain areas want to change to comprehensive education, they can change to comprehensive education. Nobody is stopping their doing so.
A lack of confidence in comprehensive schools is shown by some Opposition Members. They seem to think that comprehensives are unpopular and that marches will be organised to change them. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have more confidence in comprehensive schools than do some Labour Members.
The Bill brings back partnership in education. Hon. Members have referred to yesterday and tomorrow. The provisions of the 1944 Act were wiser than those of the 1976 Act. This is why we


are debating the issue again tonight. It is an issue that appeals to people.
The 1944 Act established a partnership between the Government, local education authorities and teachers. The 1976 Act was driven through regardless of the desires of the local education authorities and of many teachers. It was passed with little support. That is why we have returned to the situation that existed before that Act. That is why my hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and Carshalton (Mr. Forman) have made clear that the 1976 Act actually harmed the comprehensive principle in many areas. Before the passage of that Act, people moved when they were ready. The Labour Party made a political issue out of it. It invented politics that did not exist in education. We are returning to the partnership between the local authorities, the teachers and the Government.
Some hon. Members would benefit from a knowledge of the history of comprehensive education. On 1 January 1964 many education authorities which were Conservative-controlled had comprehensive schools and there was no opposition to them. Such schools were set up in Dorset, Oxfordshire, Leicestershire, West Sussex and Westmorland. During the time that the 1945 to 1951 Labour Government were in office Westmorland, which was Conservative/Independent-controlled, put forward a scheme for comprehensive education and it was rejected by the Labour Government. It is ridiculous to pretend that there has been a battle between a Labour Party, which is so far-seeing and has so many bleeding hearts, and the Conservative Party, which has held it back. The 1976 Act actually held back the advance of comprehensive education.

Mr. Flannery: If the Conservative Party was the initiator of comprehensive education, why do the Conservatives fight tooth and nail for the 11-plus examination and against comprehensive education?

Dr. Boyson: It is difficult to answer that question simply. The Bill does not fight tooth and nail to bring grammar schools back. The Bill is not about choice. It passes freedom back to local education

authorities so that they can develop schools in the interests of their areas.
Labour Members seem to think that the problems will be solved once the whole country goes comprehensive. They believe that the tears of the 11-plus will then be banished. When I was the headmaster of Highbury Grove school, I found that parents whose children were not admitted to schools of their choice protested more than they did if their children did not pass the 11-plus. The gap between the good comprehensive and the bad comprehensive is now wider than that between some of the best selective schools and the worst secondary modern schools.
It would help if Opposition Members concentrated on ensuring that children have a good education. Figures for inner London comprehensive schools were published in 1977. In only one in three London comprehensive schools could a pupil take a technical subject at A-level. In only half of those schools could a pupil sit an examination in pure mathematics. In only two-thirds could a pupil take an examination in French at A-level. Only in another one-third can one now take a second foreign language at A-level. Those are not the choices that most parents, Tory or Labour, would want for their children were they academically inclined.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) referred to truancy in London. I suggest that certain Opposition Members read Professor Rutter's book. All credit should go to the Inner London education authority for allowing that book to be written. It is an in-depth analysis of 12 comprehensive schools in London. These schools were from the same background and had the same staffing. The analysis showed that pupils entering school A as against those at another school had five times as much chance of getting an O-level pass than in the other school. This is the choice in the comprehensive system in relation to non-achievement in many of those schools.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) doubted the figures given by my hon. Friend concerning truancy. But figures are also published in that book. One school, the better school, had only 16 per cent. of its 15-year-olds playing truant normally. The other school had 41 per cent. of its pupils missing. It is all very well for hon. Mem


bers on the Opposition Benches to shout when they do not like the figures, but it might be a good idea if they read them. We can also give the same figures for delinquency.
If one goes to a county such as Oxfordshire, which is Conservative-controlled and almost totally comprehensive, one can see recently published figures of O-and A-level passes there. One finds that the gap between certain comprehensive schools and others is such that there is no doubt that there is the same pressure to get into those high-achievement comprehensive schools in Oxfordshire as once existed in relation to grammar schools as against secondary modern schools.
The idea that by passing an Act and driving pupils through the system regardless and calling schools comprehensives one has solved the problems of education, is not true. These problems can be solved only by long-term co-operation among teachers, local education authorities and Government.
I can speak about the change to comprehensive schools because I spent 12 years in them. I also spent 10 years in secondary modem schools—five years as a chalk-faced teacher and five as a headmaster. If one looks at the 1976–77 figures in UCCA, of the percentage of children of blue-collar workers who get to university—of the full intake—the fascinating aspect is that whilst we have been moving to comprehensive schools, which the Labour Party says has given opportunities to children who never had them before, the percentage of children of blue-collar workers going to university is 2 per cent. less in 1977 than in 1974. The figure fell from 26 per cent. to 24 per cent. of university intake.
Is that the great social revolution that has been heralded from the Opposition side of the Chamber? We can all do bleeding hearts on figures and we can do it emotionally. I would much prefer figures to be presented from both sides of an argument so that parents may make their decision. They are the people who should decide, with their local education authorities, how their schools should be run.
I would like to quote Mrs. Shirley Williams twice. I do not disagree with her statements. First of all, she asks whether comprehensive schools have improved academic standards. Perhaps I

should not have given her name straight away, Mr. Speaker. You must forgive me for not allowing the opportunity for a little more hilarity which I could have provoked had I asked Labour Members who they thought had made these statements. On 12 July 1978, Mrs. Williams was reported as saying at the conference of local education authorities that information about comprehensive schools was still too patchy to draw conclusions on the crucial issue of standards.
Now, with 83 per cent. of our children in comprehensive schools and with certain areas having been totally comprehensive for up to 25 years, if we still have not got the evidence I would like to know when we will get it.
It always astonishes me how politicians get into the habit of speaking on behalf of everybody in the country, particularly about anybody who is not present at the time. In 1977, there were two surveys. One, by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, sponsored a British Market Research Bureau survey into 79 secondary schools. It found that 58 per cent. of teachers thought that comprehensive schools in their areas had lowered academic standards. I am not saying those schools had lowered standards, but I asked Opposition Members who claim to speak on their behalf to let us have a better figure.
The Times Educational Supplement published in 1977 an NOP poll showing that 72 per cent. of teachers opposed the elimination of grammar schools. I am not saying that these schools should be kept, but the Opposition seem to think that they alone represent the future and that we represent the past, and the public told them what they thought of that on 3 May. Perhaps some people like the old verities and high standards and moral responsibility; perhaps that is the sort of thing that many people want.
It was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton), who was the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities education committee until he entered the House. He and some of my other hon. Friends referred to the big problem of the comprehensive schools. Statistically, one would need a 5,000-strong comprehensive school to do a viable group O-level Greek course. Unless one has a


big school of 2,000 or 1,500, one cannot provide a wide variety of courses. But if one has a small school, which does not have the disciplinary problems of the big school, one will not have the variety of courses. There must be some form of combination. That is where thought should be given for the future.
Mrs. Williams told a London conference on 5 March this year that it was only a minority of comprehensive schools that produced a large and regular flow of entrants to universities. She said that pupils from the others trickled through in ones and twos. Therefore, simply producing comprehensive schools does not solve all the problems of education. The division between the good and the less good comprehensive school is as wide as anything that came before. I am sure that that is why a smaller percentage of children of blue-collar workers are going on to university.
The comprehensive school in the suburban area is usually a grammar school with a CSE stream and the comprehensive school in a downtown area is a large secondary modern school with a few pupils doing GCE. In good areas the system has given greater advantage to children and in downtown areas it has taken them away. We can see the figures for London. As the Bible says, "From him that hath not even that which he hath shall be taken away."
Some hon. Members talk as if the Conservatives are the hard men and the soft, compassionate men are to be found on the Labour Benches. We and the hon. Member for Bedwellty can decide how to do research to find out what is happening. I believe that the coming of the comprehensive school to the inner city has done more to deprive the bright child in that area than anything else in the past 25 years.
I should like to give two more quotations before I come to the end of this winding-up speech. If I refer to The Times, that is history again, but we hope that it is the future as well. It said in a leader article on 25 March 1977:
The most characteristic socialist reform in education, the introduction of comprehensive schools, is generally believed to have led to a serious lowering of standards and to have done great harm to the prospects of hundreds of thousands of children.

That is already true. Dr. Harry Judge, who, unlike many hon. Members, had long experience of comprehensive schooling and was the head of Banbury school, which is always used as an illustration for non-streaming, said recently that
Comprehensive schools are systematically neglecting the needs of able children.
Labour Members have said that we are putting the clock back. I do not mind putting the clock back to correct a wrong. On this occasion I do not believe that we are putting the clock back. I say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that at least when we put the clock back we get another hour's daylight. The Labour Party waits until it is dark before stopping the clock. There is no harm in assessing what is going on.
The chief education officer of Richmond said recently:
We cannot just keep behaving as if comprehensive schools were something mysterious. Education is suffering a crisis of confidence that can only be removed by frankness and openness.
The Government do not object to frankness and openness. There is no doubt that the Labour Party is dogmatic and doctrinaire. We accept that in certain areas comprehensive schools have worked well. There are good comprehensive schools. On that basis the Labour Party says that there must be comprehensive schools throughout the country, regardless of whether they are wanted. It surprises me that the Left wing of the Labour Party has been bewitched by the Fabian idea of the mandarin comprehensive school. I thought that there would be rather more Friggings on the Left wing of the Labour Party.
There is one sector of the Labour Party in particular that objects to the Bill's passage. Those in that sector scorn our claim that the Bill was proposed in the Conservative Party's manifesto. It is fascinating that the Left wing of the Labour Party is talking all the time about the Right wing of the Labour Party because it chooses to carry through its manifesto commitments. It seems that Governments are not supposed to implement their manifesto pledges. I do not know how a Government can win if that argument is accepted. The Bill was proposed in the Conservative Party's manifesto. The Left wing of the Labour Party should congratulate the Government on


introducing the Bill so soon in the Parliament. If it did so, however, it might put Left-wing seats at risk.
The Bill will pass to Committee within a week. Undoubtedly we shall enjoy the long battles that will take place in Committee. The Bill is part of the overall policy that was advanced by the Conservative Party with the object of putting Britain back on the right course. The Conservative Party proposed the lowering of taxes. I know that Labour Members do not like that, but unfortunately for them the electorate does. The electorate wants to see taxes reduced, and it is with us on that score. There is similar agreement about the sale of council housing. The Labour mandarins do not want to allow the sale of council houses. However, the electorate wants that to take place. There is no doubt that it is already supporting the Government on the sale of council houses.
There is no doubt that the electorate will similarly support the Government's education policy. It will support the Government's comprehensive policy on two grounds. First, it does not believe that comprehensive schools should be forced on the public in areas where they are not wanted. It will support a measure that places power again in the hands of local authorities. Secondly, I have no doubt that the majority of parents who have children in comprehensive schools will thank the Conservative Party for introducing a policy to ensure that all comprehensive schools work. There is no doubt that the policy of the previous

Labour Government—they presumed that they had solved everything by introducing comprehensive schools—has not worked. There is great disillusionment in many areas with downtown comprehensives. We have seen the figures and we are aware of the alarm and concern.

It was interesting that the hon. Member for Bedwellty referred to me as being appointed Minister for Yesteryear. I sometimes feel that it is the Labour Party that is the party of yesteryear. When I hear the hon. Member for Hillsborough I am convinced that he represents not the party of yesteryear but of yestercentury. He trotted out the same speech that we hear time after time in this place. It reminds me of the early comprehensive school battles at a time when I was advocating comprehensive school experiments. I have a great personal respect for the hon. Gentleman. I do not have respect for his views, but I respect him personally. He had long experience of schooling but I doubt whether he is aware of current thinking in society.

I ask my right hon. Friends to support the Bill. I hope that they will do so without a shadow of a doubt. I hope that Labour Members who have comprehensive schools in their areas that are unpopular and who think that the Government should concentrate on putting right the present deficiencies will also support the Government.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 237.

Division No. 13]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Andrew
Channon, Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Bradford, Rev. R.
Churchill, W. S.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham
Clark, William (Croydon South)


Arnold, Tom
Brinton, Timothy
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Brittan, Leon
Clegg, Walter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Kenneth (St. Morylebone)
Brooke, Hon Peter
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brotherton, Michael
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Cormack, Patrick


Bell, Ronald
Browne, John (Winchester)
Costain, A. P.


Bendall, Vivian
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Crouch, David


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Buck, Antony
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Best, Keith
Budgen, Nick
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Bulmer, Esmond
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burden, F. A.
Dorrell, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
Butcher, John
Dover, Denshore


Blackburn, John
Butler, Hon Adam
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Blaker, Peter
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Body, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Durant, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eggar, Timothy




Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rhodes James, Robert


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Ridsdale, Julian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lyell, Nicholas
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW.)


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, Robert
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCusker, H.
Rossi, Hugh


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Rost, Peter


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Mackay, John (Argyll)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Scott, Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Major, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marland, Paul
Shersby, Michael


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marlow, Antony
Silvester, Fred


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Speller, Tony


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Spence, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sproat, Iain


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick
Squire, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanley, John


Greenway, Harry
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Steen, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stevens, Martin


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, J. (East Renfrewshire)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stokes, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Molyneaux, James
Tapsell, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW.)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Hannam, John
Moore, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan, Geraint
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Hastings, Stephen
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, Donald


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hayhoe, Barney
Murphy, Christopher
Thornton, George


Heddle, John
Myles, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Richard
Trippier, David


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Higgins, Terence L.
Neubert, Michael
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hill, James
Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Nott, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Hooson, Tom
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wakeham, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil
Waldegrave, Hon William


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Parris, Matthew
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walters, Dennis


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Ward, John


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey
Watson, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pawsey, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Penhaligon, David
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'rd&amp;Stev'nage)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian
Wheeler, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitney, Raymond


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pollock, Alexander
Wickenden, Keith


Kilfedder, James A.
Porter, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Wilkinson, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


Knox, David
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wolfson, Mark


Lamont, Norman
Proctor, K. Harvey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lang, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Latham, Michael
Raison, Timothy



Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lawson, Nigel
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Lee, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Renton, Tim





NOES


Abse, Leo
Alton, David
Armstrong, Ernest


Adams, Allen
Anderson, Donald
Ashley, Jack


Allaun, Frank
Archer, Peter
Ashton, Joe







Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Golding, John
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Park, George


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parker, John


Beith, A. J.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Parry, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Prfce, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Race, Reg


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Haynes, David
Radice, Giles


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Robertson, George


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Howells, Geraint
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rooker, J. W.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Canavan, Dennis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Carmichael, Neil
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ryman, John


Cartwright, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Sandelson, Neville


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sever, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheerman, Barry


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée


Cowans, Harry
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Crowther, J. S.
Lambie, David
Silverman, Julius


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Leighlon, Ronald
Snape, Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Soley, Clive


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, E. Hudson (Caerphilly)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Slallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney central)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Davis, Terry (Br'm'ham, Stechford)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stoddart, David


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
McElhone, Frank
Straw, Jack


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dobson, Frank
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Douglas, Dick
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dubs, Alfred
McWilliam, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Magee, Bryan
Tilley, John


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Torney, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Watkins, David


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Weetch, Ken


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Michael


Evans, John (Newton)
Meacher, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Ewing, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Field, F.
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Ford, Ben
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Foster, Derek
Morton, George
Woodall, Alec


Foulkes, George
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Woolmer, Kenneth


Ftaser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Newens, Stanley
Wright, Miss Sheila


Freud, Clement
Oakes, Gordon
Young, David (Bolton East)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ogden, Eric



Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Ted Graham and


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. James Hamilton.


Ginsburg, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AIRCRAFT NOISE)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister to propose his motion on aircraft noise, I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

10.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1051/76—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps hon. Members will try to leave the Chamber as quickly and as quietly as possible—if they feel they have to leave. It is unfair to the Minister to expect him to try to address the House above the noise.

Mr. Tebbit: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we do not have a directive other than yours which is so effective against noise in the Chamber.
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1051/76 and the Department of Trade's second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 14th June 1979 on the limitation of noise emission from subsonic aircraft, and welcomes the Government's intention to support this measure.
I welcome this opportunity to debate this document before the House. It was on the agenda for a Council of Ministers' meeting on Tuesday, 26 June, but I have heard today that that Council meeting has been cancelled.
The Commission document has been submitted for scrutiny by Parliament and the Scrutiny Committee recommended, in its fourteenth report in Session 1978–79, that it be further considered by this House because the instrument raises questions of legal and political importance.
There are two aspects of this measure to which I invite the attention of the House; its influence on aircraft noise and its control and, secondly, the role of the European Economic Community in this matter.
The House will agree that control of aircraft noise is an important matter. The directive requires member States to

comply with noise measures which are a minimum. It does not preclude the imposition of stricter measures by member States. These minimal measures that the directive prescribes are set out in articles 1 to 5. The first requires member States to apply to categories of aircraft specified by the International Civil Aviation Organisation the noise emission standards that ICAO has itself specified for those categories, but they go further than that. In addition to requiring the ICAO standards to be applied to categories of aircraft that ICAO has specified, they give effect to three recommendations of the European civil aviation conference, which recommend the application of ICAO standards to classes of aeroplane outside the original scope of those standards. Hon. Members might find it helpful if I expand a little on that.
The European civil aviation conference recommended, first, a prohibition on the use of non-noise-certificated subsonic jets added to ECAC registers by dates which national Administrations were free to set, but which, however, must be not later than 30th June this year. That may seem confusing. If so, the House will find it no more confusing than I did the first time that I read and tried to understand it. The essence is that it is not possible to prohibit registration but it is possible to prohibit the use of aircraft registered after the due date. That is a matter not of Community law but of British law.
ECAC secondly recommended a similar prohibition of the use of non-noise-certificated light propellor driven aircraft added to registers after 31 December this year, and thereafter a prohibition on the use of all non-noise-certificated subsonic jets on national registers to be effected between 31 December 1984 and 1 January 1988. It followed that in countries accepting the ECAC recommendation such aircraft continuing in use after the specified dates would require to be noise certificated. That sounds more difficult than it is. The directive requires that aeroplanes falling in these categories, if they are to be used at airports in member States of the Community, must be noise-certificated by those latest dates. Its provisions for certain categories of exemption include those also agreed in ECAC.
The United Kingdom has already—as indeed have other European States—given


effect to a rule based on the first ECAC recommendation and we have announced our intention of introducing the other two. A new draft noise order will shortly be laid before Parliament that will bring us fully into line with the requirements of the directive. It will in fact go further than the requirements of the directive. Except in very minor respects the order is identical to that laid before the election, which, but for lack of a quorum in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c., would have been considered by the House in April.
The second matter that we have to consider is the part that the Community has to play in limiting aircraft noise. At present the noise emitted by aircraft is subject, within the Community, to the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the European civil aviation conference. The requirements are applied in the national law of member States to a greater or lesser extent. That measure would ensure standardisation of the extent to which our Community partners enforce these measures internally and provide each member State with a means by which it could ensure that aircraft from other member States conform to the existing international standards. That mutual agreement to enforce international standards is a sensible and straightforward approach to limiting aircraft noise.
The directive would not prevent the United Kingdom from introducing more stringent regulation for United Kingdom-registered aircraft as the new order will do. At present, where United Kingdom requirements are more stringent than those in the international agreements, we require foreign-registered aircraft to conform not to our more stringent requirements but only to the international standards. This would remain unchanged, except that we would require EEC aircraft to conform to the standards in the directive.
Article 7 of the directive does, however, exhort EEC member States to take measures with the aim of ensuring that aircraft that are not on the register of a member State but use aerodromes in their territory, meet requirements at least as stringent as those in the directive. It will be helpful to have the co-operation of member States in dealing with third countries on the question of aircraft noise.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I ask the Minister an extremely important

question about Turkey. As an associated State, has Turkey accepted these obligations?

Mr. Tebbit: To the best of my belief, no. However, I shall reply more firmly to the hon. Member later in the debate. I am not certain of the position at present.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister write to me, because this is very important?

Mr. Tebbit: I hope that I shall be able to give the hon. Member a more positive answer later this evening.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I may have misheard him. I thought that he said just now that an article of the directive had exhorted member States to do this, that or the other. Is that a direct expression to describe the effect of a directive?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me. The main part of the directive will be enforceable under Community law, but there is also within the directive an exhortation which is not, as I understand it, enforceable. Had it been so, I would not have referred to it as "an exhortation".
The directive will be a small but useful step in improving the environment of the Community and will ensure that member States do not gain an unfair competitive advantage by operating air fleets under less stringent noise control.
I turn now to the question of the Community's powers, which understandably has raised a good deal if interest among hon. Members. Under the Treaty of Rome, if this directive is adopted member States would be required to act jointly rather than independently in international fora on aircraft noise.
Let me explain how this would work in practice. The main international forum on aircraft noise is the committee on aircraft noise of ICAO. This is a technical body, where national experts are acting in a personal capacity. We shall continue to take the line that such experts' meetings are outside the Community's authority. Decision-making in ICAO is done by the Council, a permanent body of 30 elected members. The Community is not a member of ICAO, nor does it


enjoy observer status. The United Kingdom and three other member States are on the ICAO Council. They already co-ordinate informally on ICAO business, but they are careful not to be seen to act as a single body.
This is important in ICAO, where political issues are rarely raised and where the power blocs are little in evidence.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I ask the Minister to clarify one point. When he said that the Community would be obliged to act in conformity on aircraft noise matters, did he just mean on engine noise? I take it that there would be no consequent obligation upon member States to abide by the same kind of regime of curfews or other measures designed to reduce the impact of noise on the population around airports.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is correct. This directive relates to the enforcement of ICAO noise standards. Those standards concern, of course, the measured noise of aircraft. They are not concerned with curfews or any other such matters that are bound to be different for individual airports in individual countries.
The lack of politics in ICAO is particularly significant in so far as it concerns the Community. Its four representatives on the Council of 30 give it a powerful influence, considering that the EEC is but nine States—though numbering several major civil aviation Powers—out of an ICAO membership of 144. Member States and the Commission are well aware of this.
I am satisfied that the extension of the Community's authority which the directive will produce is justified by the extra powers that it will bring to enable us to limit the noise of aircraft from other member States.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this takes the position far beyond that which relates to shipping? The Labour Government resisted strongly the suggestion that the Community should take a joint line at IMCO. Will he explain to the House that by the assumption of this area of authority on the part of the Commission, that authority will also extend to wider aviation matters?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall come to that point before I sit down. I have stated already that the directive will not oblige us to act in the sense of a total package deal at ICAO. It is accepted by member States and by the Commission that that would not be the best way to proceed, as, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, would be the case at IMCO.

Sir Donald Kaberry: What does all this mean? Does it mean that we will have more or less noise at our airports? I am concerned about my local airport, Leeds—Bradford.

Mr. Tebbit: There will be less noise. The purpose of adopting the directive is to make it possible to enforce lower aircraft noise limits throughout the Community. Although we would be able to enforce such limits unilaterally on our aircraft it is often difficult to enforce them on the aircraft of other countries. The directive will ensure that the Community moves in step in enforcing international standards in order that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) can sleep more peacefully at night—provided that I can persuade the House that the extension of European authority will not be a bad thing for the United Kingdom in itself.

Mr. Jack Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, in accepting the extension of the Community's authority, he is asking us to believe—as the directive does—that the disparity in aircraft noise:
may … directly affect the functioning of the Common Market"?

Mr. Tebbit: I am asking the House to believe that aircraft noise is a serious issue in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Straw: That is not what it says in the directive.

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman asks a question I hope that he will have the courtesy to allow me to answer it. If my answer does not satisfy him he can come back to me. We are intent on seeking powers, through the Community, to ensure that all aircraft registered in the Community comply with the ICAO standards. That is the essence of the


matter. There is the additional advantage that we believe that it will enable us to act more powerfully to enforce standards to third-party aircraft coming into the Community. It is an advantage for the Community to act as one in any such action.

Dr. Alan Glyn: This is a complicated matter and obviously it will be of great advantage to us, but when my hon. Friend talks of enforcement, does it mean that we shall have the power to fine, stop or ban aircraft from other European countries which do not come up to ICAO standards—apart, of course, from our own aircraft which we can deal with?

Mr. Tebbit: I apologise for the fact that the mechanism is slightly complicated. It means that in exactly the same way as we will refuse to allow aircraft which do not meet the ICAO noise limits to operate, our fellow members of the Community will move in time with us in the same way to control aircraft noise emitted by aircraft of their fleets.
This measure was brought before the Council under article 84.2 of the Treaty, which provides that
 The Council may, acting unanimously, decide whether, to what extent and by what procedure appropriate provision may be made for sea and air transport".
Hon. Members will have seen press reports of a comprehensive civil aviation programme which was put forward by the Commission last week. This has not yet been presented to the Council of Ministers, and therefore I am unable to comment on its contents.
Although, naturally, I hope to be able to take a constructive view of its proposals, acceptance of this directive in no way commits the United Kingdom to the acceptance of further measures in civil aviation. I shall consider each proposal on its merits and, in the light of the likely effects of any further extension of Community authority which might arise from such proposals and after due consultation, I shall take action accordingly, provided that the House is kind enough to give me the necessary authority.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is there not great merit in further harmonisation of civil airworthiness re

quirements within the member States of the Community, and perhaps a further movement in that direction, eventually leading to common airworthiness requirements, and perhaps even a single regulatory and airworthiness body?

Mr. Tebbit: It is always possible to predicate some such ideas and some day on which they may perhaps be put forward by the Commission or others, but they should be considered not only on the merit of the particular proposal but from the point of view of whether we wish to extend the authority or competence of the EEC in those areas and others which might open up beyond. We shall take both factors into account.
It should not be assumed that, because we see an advantage in allowing the Community to extend its influence into the area of aircraft noise, which is essentially an environmental matter, we would see a similar advantage in allowing an extension into the wider aviation issues.

Mr. Clinton Davis: It is not up to them.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman says "It is not up to them", but I am not sure to which "them" he is referring. He was the Minister who extended the competence of the European Commission on matters affecting marine affairs and has taken the view that this does not open up a much wider area. We take a similar view.

Mr. Davis: The Minister should not make these assumptions. If he researches history a little more carefully he will see that I was not the Minister who took that step. What the House is concerned about and what the Minister seems concerned to skate over is this: is there not ample precedent to establish that once the Community has grasped jurisdiction in this way it feels impelled—and feels that it has the authority to do so—to extend that jurisdiction far more widely? Indeed, the grasping of something that is fairly innocuous is the usual precedent that is established in these matters.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may make that claim, but if we accept this directive we accept a directive that gives the Community power to impose ICAO noise standards. We do not give the Community power to extend into


matters of certification or regulation in other areas.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but it is important to get the facts straight. In reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) he said that this directive, if accepted, would enable the United Kingdom to impose tougher standards. Why cannot the United Kingdom impose ICAO standards at Leeds or anywhere else by saying that unless an aircraft comes up to ICAO standards we will not allow it to land or take off? If that were so there would surely be no advantage to be gained from this directive.

Mr. Tebbit: The question of imposing standards of noise or anything else on aircraft at particular airports or in particular countries is fraught with difficulty unless done with the agreement of the other States concerned. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps recall that some difficulties arose in the case of the United States and Concorde. It is far better that we mutually agree that we shall impose as a minimum the ICAO standards throughout the Community on the same dates and in the same manner.
As I said earlier, we shall consider each Community measure on its merits, balancing the advantage to the Community against the loss, however great or however trivial, of national authority. This is one area where the balance lies on the side of acceptance and I therefore intend to support the directive when it comes before the Council. I ask the House to support the Government proposal to do so.

Mr. Stephen Ross: There has been reference to marine engines. Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the position of hovercraft which are extremely noisy? Do they fall under the terms of any of the directives that will be coming to the House?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is hoping that they do or that they do not. I can tell him that ICAO does not lay down noise standards for hovercraft, which would be excluded from the effect of this directive.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I beg to move, as an amendment, to leave out from 'aircraft' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'but, whilst agreeing with the international standards suggested by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, believes that they are best achieved through that body; regards extension of EEC competence in the field of aviation as undesirable; and deplores the duplication of existing machinery and the creation of additional bureaucracy.'.
There is no dispute about the need to control aircraft noise. This debate rellates solely to the question whether this directive is the right method. I would like to make one preliminary observation on the draft directive. As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, acceptance of the draft directive would severely restrict the freedom of this country to operate an international agreement that is entered into. We would not be able to introduce domestic legislation in future on these matters unless the EEC had first agreed that we could do so, even though we had been a member of the international organisation concerned and had agreed to do so there. There can be no dispute about this matter. It is contained in the Government's explanatory memorandum.
We regard that principle as wrong and an additional reason, although not the main reason, for opposing this draft directive. Once the Commission has acquired competence in this area, the next step will be for it to ask politely, but eventually to require, that member States, acting in Council, accept the presence of the Commission either as an observer or, more likely, on the basis of experience of the past five or six years, as a participating member, jointly with the member States, in the international organisation concerned.
A further step eventually will be the exclusion of the member States from the international organisation and their replacement solely by the Commission acting on behalf of the Community as a whole.
I ask the Minister to tell us tonight what the Government's attitude will be when any such proposal is put forward by the Commission. I do not say "if". This is not hypothetical. It will be put forward by the Commission, and we want to know the Government's attitude.
This draft directive very much raises the issue of competence. This is an issue that has exercised both this Hosue and the House of Lords quite a lot in the past few years. The House of Lords produced a report—Paper No. 131—last year, and there was a subsequent debate in the other place on, I think, 4 July 1978, when many fears were expressed by the noble Lords then present about the use of article 100 for extending Commission and Community competence.
The relevance of article 100 to this debate is that in a much earlier version of the draft directive in 1976 the Commission called in aid article 100 as the reason for putting forward this particular proposal. Only since then has it been changed. I shall come back to that later.
I find it rather surprising that noble Lords in the other place, which is supposed to be one of the constitutional watchdogs for this country, should be waking up far too late to the dangers inherent in the growing process of harmonisation within the Community and its laws. The watchdog did not bark during the passage of the European Communities Bill in 1972, and it is rather late in the day—I do not say pathetic—for the other place to bark now, when the intruder is not merely at the gates but is sitting comfortably in the living room.
The Scrutiny Committee of this House had some reservations about this draft directive, and these are set out perfectly fairly by the Government in the latest explanatory memorandum. In effect, the Committee saw no reason why the Community should be seeking competence in this field. The explanatory memorandum also contains a statement that Ministers are, or were—they may have stopped now—considering the implications for Community competence of this directive. There is nothing more about that in the rest of the explanatory memorandum or in the Minister's statement tonight, and I hope that he will enlighten us. What has been the outcome of that consideration? Have the Government finished their study of the issue of Community competence, and, if so, what has been the result?
We have three major worries about the extension of Community competence. First, it is a fact that when the Community seeks to extend its competence and puts one foot forward and wins that step,

it then being established, it will proceed to take further steps. The Commission is always there. It is virtually a permanent part of our constitution. We have to accept it while we are in the EEC, but that means that the Commission is constantly seeking not merely to undermine national sovereignty but to extend its own area of influence and competence.
Hon. Members may or may not agree with that, but it means that every time the Commission extends its competence it extends the bureaucratic hold of Brussels over all that goes on in the Community. Ministers in the individual countries change from time to time. Governments change. Fortunately, this Parliament does not. Parliament goes on, like the Commission, and it is to Parliament, not to Ministers or individual Members, that we must look to resist further extension of Commission competence.
We have to watch every move that the Commission makes. I am glad to see that the Government's civil servants, according to a recent answer from the noble Lord the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, are given that task. They have to watch all the time to make sure that the Community is not extending its competence into areas where it should not.
The second reason why the draft directive should be opposed, on the ground of extended competence, is that it represents a bad bargain for us. There is a small gain in that better standards of aircraft noise and better methods of control are to be introduced a few years in advance of the general implementation of the ICAO standards which have been accepted widely by many countries. We are getting a short-term benefit and losing a long-term advantage. We are paying a price for the short-term benefit because we are accepting an undesirable and permanent extension of Commission competence into a new area. It is bad enough when competence is accepted in an existing EEC sphere of influence for the Community.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Why is this directive such a ghastly intrusion into our affairs? It is not clear to me.

Mr. Deakins: I am arguing on a matter of principle. I hope that one is still


allowed to do that when discussing relatively small directives. This directive has wide implications.
Hon. Members who take an interest in aviation will know that
On 12 June 1978 the Council adopted a programme of work on initial measures for a common air transport policy.
"Programme of work" is a new expression for the Community.
That programme assigns priority to several areas. This is the first step. We have seen the subsequent steps. The programme covers
common standards restricting aircraft nuisance to the environment; simplification of formalities … implementation of technical standards; provisions concerning aids to airline companies; rules on competition, mutual recognition of professional qualifications for air crews and ground staff; working conditions of air crews; right of establishment; possible improvements to inter-regional air services; search, rescue and recovery operations; and investigations into accidents.
The document states that
The institutions of the Community are currently … drawing up proposals for legal acts in those areas.
and continues by pointing out that such a programme on priorities
cannot yet be regarded as an expression of a coherent common policy on air transport.
So, there is much more to come. The document states that
A common policy would have to aim at creating a common airspace and at negotiating, in accordance with common rules only, landing rights within and outside the Community.
If that is not a forecast of a gross extension, step by step, of Community competence, I do not know what is. Those are matters which are within the purview of this Parliament and this country. The Minister is already partly committed by the work programme agreed in July last year.
The hon. Gentleman told me in a written reply today that
The EEC Council of Ministers has taken no general decision in relation to policy on sea and air transport.
If a work programme is not a general decision, what is it?

Mr. Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman objecting to something that was done by the Council of Ministers during the last Administration?

Mr. Deakins: I am, indeed. There is no secret about this. I have already given the date of June 1978. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends were not in power then. I am merely making the point that his own Government will accept this.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not think it a very serious matter, because he remained a Minister.

Mr. Deakins: As the hon. Gentleman may well find, there are many matters on which junior Ministers as well as senior Ministers sometimes disagree with their colleagues. The doctrine of collective responsibility does not mean collective fault on every issue. If the hon. Gentleman wants that sort of thing, he should find a few different colleagues. There are a few people of independent mind on the Government Benches.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I think that I should try to clarify the position. The mere fact that a work programme is undertaken at the instance of the Commission in no way binds member States to an acceptance of any conclusions that are reached. No detail is investigated by individual Governments while that work is going on.

Mr. Deakins: I am pleased to have my hon. Friend's assurance, but I know from experience in different Departments—I think he will admit this—that once a work programme has been undertaken it rolls forward and there is increasing pressure on member States to see progress made. We all know—those who do not should know—the pressure on the President of the Council of Ministers at the end of his six-month presidency, which will not recur for several years. Presidents are under great pressure to tie up a package of concessions and agreements to crown their tenure of office with glory. It is at such times that the concessions are made. We are opening the way to that.
The third reason why we are opposed to Community competence in this area is that it means the transfer of powers once more from national Parliaments to the Commission, not in a way envisaged in the Treaty of Rome. The more power given to the Commission, the greater the temptation—as the Commission operates in a political vacuum, under the broad


supervision of the Council of Ministers—for the directly elected Assembly to try to step into the breach.
I can summarise my feelings and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the extension of Community competence with an analogy that I hope will not be considered too farfetched. The Community is like a railway system, with a number of stations on the line. The first station, the Treaty of Rome, is long past. The last station—we do not know how many stations there are—is a federated United States of Western Europe. Some hon. Members may support that. Others do not. There is no disputing that those stations exist and that the Community's destination is the station at the end of the line, the federation of Western European States.
It is a rather peculiar railway. There are two lines running from the first station to the last, going through every station, but, unlike passengers on normal railway systems, passengers at any station can take a train only in one direction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am sorry if hon. Members do not like my trying to show why Community competence is so important for the future of this country and the House. I am sorry that they do not care about sovereignty. If they do not care about sovereignty and the work of the House, they should not be here. They should be outside Parliament.
The trains on the system go in only one direction, and the train that we are considering is marked "Air transport". We have seen only one part of it.

Mr. Wilkinson: European air train.

Mr. Deakins: I am sorry that hon. Members are so flippant. They will live to regret that attitude. There is no doubt but that the Community is heading in the direction that I have specified. No one on the Government Benches has denied that. Indeed, a numer of hon. Members welcome the direction that it is taking. My hon. Friends and I am worried that once the train has started on its journey there is no way of turning it back. Once we have accepted one extension of Community competence, there will be no way in which, in the long term, we can prevent further extensions.
It is no consolation to be told that we can delay the journey and that we shall arrive at the destination later rather than sooner. Some of us do not want to reach the destination at any time. I strongly suspect that the British people do not want to, either. It is not a matter that was put to them during the referendum campaign or during the general election.
We shall do well tonight to take stock of where this humble draft directive, with its wider implications for the sovereignty of this place and the United Kingdom, is taking us. I urge Conservative Members, especially those who have some doubts about the direction that the Community is taking, seriously to think before supporting the Government. I hope that at least they will abstain when we press a Division on the amendment.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Unlike the signatories to the amendment, I must declare an interest. I am a director of a civil air transport company and before I took up that appointment I was selling civilian aircraft. I address myself especially to the amendment, as I endorse wholeheartedly the remarks of my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State. He explained the position extremely clearly. He said, in short, that if we are to reduce the impact of aircraft noise it is wisest to adopt a co-operative approach. That is an entirely sensible attitude.
I do not welcome the last phrase in the amendment, which
deplores the duplication of existing machinery and the creation of additional bureaucracy.
Over the past few years there has been a welcome move towards a more effective European approach to civil air transport. For example, the Association of European Aircraft Constructors has been seeking joint airworthiness requirements. It would be better for us all if there were an effective counterweight in Europe to the FAA. That is why I intervened in my hon. Friend's speech. At present it is exceedingly expensive to sell an aeroplane from one Community country to another. If it is wished, for example, to sell an aircraft from Britain to France or Germany it has to be validated by the


individual airworthiness body of the buying country. That is an impediment to trade, and business suffers.
From a safety standpoint, we have an approach to airworthiness that is second to none in the world. Recently comments have been made about the lack of adequate fatigue testing of civil air transport aircraft on the other side of the Atlantic. We believe that our standards are superior. At a time when the European aircraft consortium—Airbus Industrie—is becoming an increasingly dominant force in the civil air transport market, it would be well if the European airworthiness bodies were brought together.
The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) criticised common crew training and standards. How ludicrous if members of the Community are not able to accept, for example, an airline transport pilot's licence or commercial pilot's licence without question from another member State. How ludicrous to query common air space and moves in that direction. We already have Euro-control, without which we could not fly safely down the airways of Western Europe. Does he imagine that, in a Community which is never more than three hours' flying time from one end to the other, we should not be moving in this direction? Does he think that it is good sense that the air space of, for instance, Luxembourg should be totally sacrosanct when it takes only about five minutes' flying time to cross it?
We all realise that the passenger in Western Europe has not had the best possible deal from current civil air transport policies. We pay far too much for scheduled airline traffic in Western Europe and anything the Commission can do to achieve a more competitive environment, which favours the consumer, I would wholeheartedly welcome. I support everything that the Minister said.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has saved me from having to make a point that I wished to make—that, although we cannot, at this late hour, enter into the important debate about the relative sovereignty of the United Kingdom and of Western Europe,

the existence of Euro-control is a demonstration in one important sphere that there is no hope of solving some of the major problems of Western Europe by resorting to the ancient bleatings of down-trodden sovereignty. There is no way—

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me completely. I was in no way objecting to Britain being a member of international organisations. If he reads the amendment, which he obviously has not, he will see that it mentions our support for the work going on through ICAO.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that we can support that work, but if Western Europe is to achieve a sensible dimension to many of its decisions, not least in the sphere of air traffic control and many others, it will have to learn to think and act and operate and be competent as Western Europe. Unless this House, whether in the exercise of its sovereignty or otherwise, seeks to assist that ideal, we shall not be assisting our own interests.
I want to turn to a narrower but not unimportant point. Governments, when pursuing the interests either of safety, which are always presented to the House as paramount, or of minimising pollution, which also tend, these days, to have almost a righteousness of their own, often present legislation as though it is totally self-justifying, and one must never ask any more about its costs or its implications. I know how often the Minister, in another incarnation, used to emphasise the importance of costs.
What are some of the economic implications of this legislation? How many aircraft will suffer accelerated depreciation? How many aircraft in Western Europe as a whole will have to be modified? He knows as well as I do how expensive aircraft modifications can be. Perhaps looking further ahead, does the legislation require the aircraft manufacturers to undertake particular research? The Minister knows how expensive advanced research, whether to minimise noise or to achieve any other aeronautical criterion, can be.
The implication is that the cost of travelling by air will rise. Someone has to pay for this control of what is termed "aural pollution". That someone is the airline passenger, eventually, or those who


use aircraft for freight. Whether Governments are talking about achieving higher standards of safety or of pollution control, in this sphere or any other, the time has come when, almost as a matter of principle, we should always be told the cost as we approach asymptotically to the ideal.
We shall never reach 100 per cent. safety or 100 per cent. control of pollution. We shall probably never reach 100 per cent. of any of these ideals. But we know—we have had experience of this in the last few years—that, as one approaches 100 per cent. 90 per cent. can be achieved comparatively economically. The next 5 per cent. cost probably as much as the first 90 per cent. The next 2 per cent. costs probably twice as much as all that has gone before. As Governments raise standards we move steadily into the era of very high cost indeed. It would be illuminating if my hon. Friend could say what are the economic implications of these desirable objectives.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I wish to address two questions to the Minister, to clarify matters.
First, very little was said about the enforcement of these proposals. If this directive were carried through and applied to this country, who would be responsible for its enforcement? For instance, if an aircraft from an EEC or outside country landed here, or attempted to land, and created excessive noise, who would then proceed against it under these proposals? 
Secondly, we are dealing not with a regulation but with a directive, or EEC legislation which is not automatically legally binding in this country. Am I right in assuming that if the Minister went to Brussels and the directive were approved there, a further statutory instrument would come before the House which we should have the right to debate and vote on?

11.11 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I tried to put the points raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to my hon. Friend when he opened the debate. I congratulate him on doing a difficult job.
Any form of noise reduction is obviously welcome. I congratulate the Minister further on accepting the Common Market standards and adding extra standards to be applicable to our own airports.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we should impose standards when foreign aircraft land, or prohibit such aircraft from landing. Who should pay the fine? Would the aircraft be confiscated? What is the mechanism by which the sanction would be imposed on the defaulting aircraft?

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: This is the first opportunity that I have had of debating with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade in our present roles. I regret that we are in this position. However, that is the will of a democratic society.
In the previous Administration I was Minister with responsibility in this area. Unlike many of my colleagues, in other respects and in debates, I engaged in a good deal of friendly co-operation with the Minister. That may come as a surprise to my hon. Friends. However, the Minister has considerable expertise in this area, although I am not sure that I necessarily trust his judgment on this issue. That, however, is a matter for legitimate debate.
Aircraft noise is hardly the most sublime noise ever to have penetrated the ear of mankind. It represents a pestilence for many people. I do not think that any hon. Member on either side of the House would argue that this country should not do whatever is reasonably practicable to mitigate such noise, or take action, as successive Governments have done, to tackle the question of noise at source, by phasing out noisier aircraft. The previous Government did that and we were proposing to put forward further measures on that subject. I am sure that the Minister will announce similar proposals in the not too far distant future. There are other policies which have been undertaken, such as night jet quotas and possibly even the closure of airports at night, the latter being the subject of a separate study. There are noise insulation grants and other perfectly justifiable steps that are taken to make life more


tolerable for people who are affected by aircraft noise.
I must say that occasionally this noise gave rise to some extraordinary situations. I recall that on some occasions at 3 a.m. my wife and I were interrupted in our sleep by a lady who rang from Ealing to tell me that one of my aircraft had flown over her house. I never had the presence of mind to say "Thank God, it was one of ours."
The fact is that there are people who are driven absolutely frantic by this form of nuisance, and it is right that Governments should do whatever they can to mitigate it. Certainly it is right that successive Governments have done everything that they could in the international fora that are available to ensure that standards that have been agreed and practices that have been recommended by ICAO in annex 16 and its amendments to the international convention on civil aviation will be followed. We have actively supported the work of ICAO and of ECAC.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In this "esprit de corporation" which I gather exists, has my hon. Friend passed on the right telephone number now?

Mr. Davis: I hope that the Undersecretary will not be assailed in quite the same way. I think that we should conduct our debates in a more civilised way than by passing telephone numbers on to the lady from Ealing.
Having reflected on the work that we have done in these international bodies, I think that it is clear that it would be undesirable that we should have a plethora of organisations, each attempting to achieve the same goals. I do not think that that would be conducive to the attainment of the objectives that I have set out. It is not helpful to have an unnecessary bureaucracy. It is not right that airlines should be subjected to additional and often unnecessary form filling and inquiries being made to no real purpose.
Therefore, what we are testing tonight are two important questions. First, can the Minister establish to the reasonable satisfaction of the House that the creation of yet another body dealing with the subject of aircraft noise, namely, the EEC, will achieve some positive environmental

benefits commensurate with the additional staff, expenditure and effort that will be required, without duplicating the work of the other agencies that already exist?
It is fair to point out that the Scrutiny Committee could see no such reason why the Community should seek this additional competence in this field.
The second question that we are testing is whether the Minister has been able to satisfy the House that the acceptance of this fairly innocuous and fine-sounding draft directive will not lead to the argument on the part of the Commission that it is entitled to assume a far wider competence over aviation matters, which could be prejudicial to our own national aviation interests.
In the light of these important issues, the previous Labour Government approached this matter with considerable and entirely justifiable concern. We accepted that there might be some help afforded in improving the environment of the Community, although for the United Kingdom, as the Minister has pointed out, the proposals added nothing to what we had already announced or proposed to announce. But, having said that, is it right that we should also consider the price that might have to be paid?
From a reading of the Commission documents, the main benefit appears to be that one or two nations within the EEC, and certainly not the most significant aviation States, might otherwise be somewhat laggardly in adopting the standards of ICAO to which I have referred. Luxembourg and Italy were identified as being laggardly and I should like to know the latest developments in those two countries. If this draft directive had never been thought of, would the Italian Government not be falling into line with the rest of the members of the European Community who have voluntarily agreed to deploy the policies recommended by ICAO?
The hon. Gentleman retailed the benefits that might accrue from the adoption of the draft directive, but he did not deal satisfactorily with the possible disadvantages. Is there not a risk that all that will be achieved is a larger bureaucracy, more researchers and other people being employed, more offices being occupied and more questionnaires, all demanding the deployment of more resources to achieve marginal benefits?
The Conservative Party is scathing about bureaucracy in this country, even when it is the author, as in the case of the Health Service and local government, but its silence is deafening when it comes to increasing bureaucracy in the EEC. Further, the Conservative Party is prepared to aid and abet it.
The expertise currently available to the Community, not only in aviation as a whole, where it is most limited, but in this particular field, is inadequate and would have to be supplemented. Do not individual member countries already have scarce resources to deal with problems of noise abatement? Can this country spare additional officials to supplement the expertise that may be required in Brussels?
The hon. Gentleman said nothing about the cost. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that point.
Why cannot the objectives of noise abatement and the implementation of agreed standards be realised through the existing organisations, as the Scrutiny Committee points out? We make a considerable contribution to these organisations. There are dangers in the duplication of effort.
I have been in touch with a number of airlines. One of their concerns is that there would be an obvious need effectively to monitor all the agencies and keep the industry informed of developments within them. What proposals will the Minister make to ensure that those objectives are achieved? How can we ensure that the industry is able to make its views fully known in the relevant organisations?
Even more fundamental than these practical points is the extension of Community competence, a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that it would be desirable massively to extend Community competence in the field of aviation. He is entitled to that view, but we are equally entitled to explore the inherent dangers. That is why, when we were in office, we placed a reserve on the whole question of competence.
It is the kernel of the Minister's case that these issues can be neatly compartmentalised and that dealing with aviation noise is an end in itself. If there is any question of an extension, there he is, proud and strong and able to resist further incursions. I am not so sure that that is accurate. There have been previous precedents of the Community producing an apparently harmless draft directive, and then seeking much wider jurisdiction and authority. One precedent easily creates another, and they could soon accumulate and become law.
I am not satisfied with the assurances that the Minister has given on that score. In this context there was a debate in another place on 4 July 1978. I am not permitted to quote from speakers in another place who are not Ministers, but one noble Lord said that basically he was disturbed about the ease with which members of the Commission sought to seize additional areas of jurisdiction. He recounted the story of some officials who were being probed by him and others as to how far they would want to press the argument about the assumption of competence. It was suggested to these officials that there were some areas of family law, abortion, and other matters which were not within the Treaty, which is related to economic matters, and therefore were not within the Community's competence, They solemnly replied that they did not think that that was a self-evident proposition. That is the sort of thinking that causes great concern on the Opposition Benches.
That was not only the view of one member of another place. That distinguished lawyer, Lord Diplock, was very concerned about the danger of acquiescing in the creeping surrender of our national sovereignty in almost unlimited fields of law. I suggest that these words should be heeded with great care.
We understand that the Commission is anxious about the European Court of Justice in bringing the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome to bear on air transport, but have the Government really thought out the consequences of helping the Commission to speed up the process, and perhaps doing so unnecessarily? What is in store for the United Kingdom, particularly if the thoughts of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood come to fruition? Should we


appease the insatiable appetite of the Community in this regard? Should we not consider our own national interests in this creeping form of control?
It is right to consider the position of our own aviation industry against this background. Our aviation interests are more extensive than those of our European partners. Therefore, should we risk subordinating our national interests to Community-wide considerations? Do not we have more to lose in terms of our share of European air transport than anyone else? While the European proposals in general are fairly unspecific, the balance of advantage in accepting the draft must remain in doubt and let there be no doubt that there is still considerable vagueness about a number of the ideas being ventilated about air transport in the EEC.
I want to know more about our relationships, in view of the directive, with other international bodies such as ECAC and ICAO.
The Minister was a little confusing in this respect. I hope that he can say a little more about that subject.
I also ask the Minister to say something about the effect of the draft directive, if implemented, on our freighting interests. British operators have a growing fleet of good cargo aircraft. A great deal of business is done with African countries, often in places where airports are far from satisfactory in terms of loading and unloading. There is a risk that we shall reach a position in which quieter and bigger aircraft—too big and too sophisticated, perhaps, for that type of market in terms of loading and unloading palletised freight—are used and consequently, the directive could have unhappy consequences. I understand that it takes many of these countries a good deal of time to turn round a 707. How would the valuable freight be carried in these larger and quieter aircraft?
May I also put a question about the DC10? The recent events affecting that aircraft give rise to anxieties. It is not appropriate to comment on matters directly affecting the crash, or the views expressed by the CAA. That, no doubt, will be raised at another time. But there must now be a doubt about future purchases of the DC10. There is likely to be

a problem in that respect in future. Since we may not get these quieter aircraft on to the market, will EEC countries be able to acquire insufficient quantities of other aircraft within the time scale suggested by the directive? It may be that my doubts are ill-founded, but it falls to the Minister to clarify the point.
The hon. Gentleman should not have given such a swift welcome to the directive. Happily, there is time for the hon. Gentleman to think again, because the meeting of Ministers is not now to take place on 26 June. The Minister will be spared that remarkable experience, at least for a short time. I hope that he will reflect on what has been said from the Labour Benches and that he will be able to answer some of my questions. If he cannot deal with all of them—although I am sitting down a little earlier than I had planned, to give him more time—I trust that he will write to me about those that he cannot cover.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Tebbit: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to reply to the not inconsiderable volume of questions that have been put to be my the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Dr. Davis) and other right hon. and hon. Members.
I refer first to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). I should at once put him and his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central right over this question of what the amendment refers to as
the duplication of existing machinery and the creation of additional bureaucracy.
I am not sure, even now, that either of the hon. Members has quite grasped the point. That must be my fault in not explaining it adequately. This directive does not create additional bureaucracy or machinery—beyond the machinery and bureaucracy required for the members of the Community to receive from the Community a letter—presumably franked with a 9p stamp, or whatever it costs in Brussels—telling them that they are required to implement the standards of ICAO which are already in existence.
ICAO does not require that the Community should create a noise certificate. That idea, which was put forward way back in 1976, has been dropped. It does not require that there should be new


conferences, in new places, about these things, with hordes of new officials and experts. It requires only that the ICAO regulations should be implemented. That is the essence of the matter.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being naïve, because he will find that the Community does not exist like that. At the very least I think that he will be entitled to expect a lunch, because that is how it does its business.

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman feels that the argument that I might have lunch at the expense of the Community is one that should restrain us from taking measures which we have agreed will help to control aircraft noise, he is putting a pretty thin case.
The hon. Member for Waltham Forest made a great deal of the acceptance of the Community in ICAO. I think that he misunderstands ICAO. That would require the agreement of that body. There are 144 members of that body. I am not of the opinon that they would necessarily be overly anxious to welcome the Community, as the Community, into their midst, even if that was the proposal which we, as members of the Community, were to put. I do not think that it will work in that way.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had considered the extension of Community competence. I might have expressed myself inadequately, but I was genuinely of the opinion that I had said something about that in the remarks with which I began this debate.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was a small gain in terms of aircraft noise. There will be a gain, but I think that the point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that the ICAO recommendations are not mandatory on anyone unless they are put into the national law of the countries concerned, and the directive will oblige members of the Community to implement those recommendations in their national law.
The hon. Gentleman produced, like some horrid spectre, this idea of Community action to improve standards of air safety, or even to improve competition. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not oppose measures to improve air safety, and I am sure that if what I was introducing tonight was a proposal

that on this matter a group of States should agree to bind themselves to implement this proposal of ICAO neither the hon. Gentleman nor anybody else would object. What the hon. Gentleman is afraid of is the train which he mentioned, and we understand that.

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends' train.

Mr. Tebbit: Some of my hon. Friends would take that train a long way. Some would like to reverse it, and I believe that the same is true of the Opposition Benches. In being so quick to criticise what happened under his Government the hon. Gentleman perhaps laid himself open to the charge that the train about which we were talking was the gravy train, which it was difficult to get off.
I do not want to be too unkind to the hon. Gentleman about that, but I did not think that it came well from him to discover that this issue of competence and the proposal of the Community, to which I referred in my speech and with which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central dealt very well, was such a terrible thing. It was so dramatic tonight. It was so frightening that our flesh was made to creep, but it was not enough to frighten the hon. Gentleman into standing up and saying anything about it when his Government were in office. I do not believe that it frightens the hon. Gentleman at all.

Mr. Deakins: I did not know about the working part at the time. Furthermore, as far as I have been able to discover, the matter was not reported to Parliament or to the Scrutiny Committee.

Mr. Tebbit: In that case the hon. Gentleman, once again, is making savage criticisms of his colleagues. I cannot take seriously the extent to which he claims that he is alarmed by the measure. I take seriously the extent to which he is alarmed about the potential of progress to some form of federal State—we all take that seriously.
I should like to refer to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Turkey is not a member of the Community and will not be bound by the directive unless and until she becomes one. The directive does not apply to associate members.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Community or


the British Government intend to approach the Turks to discover their attitude?

Mr. Tebbit: We are anxious to put any pressure that we can upon all countries inside and outside the Community to accede to annex 16 to the ICAO recommendation.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for his warm expression of thanks for my remarks—even if he got the impression that I may not be as warm as he is about the proposals for a substantial expansion of the Community's authority in the other matters affecting the air transport industry.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) that all recommendations of ICAO are required to be economically reasonable. He asked how many aircraft would suffer accelerated depreciation. I am afraid that I cannot tell him that, but I can tell him that well over seven years' notice will be given of the ending of the service of those aircraft. Any prudent airline will take that into account.
If noise levels are unacceptable, if airfields have to be closed and new ones built, and if expensive double-glazing programmes have to be undertaken to insulate from noise, that will involve substantial expense. It would be better to ensure that new aircraft coming into service were as quiet as it was reasonably possible to make them.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred to enforcement. The burden of enforcement rests on the State of registry, which is obliged to prohibit the use of aircraft which do not conform to the standards. Legislation is needed, and it will be provided in the form of the order to which I referred earlier. It was laid in the last Parliament but, unhappily, there was not a quorum in Committee and it was not able to be discussed.

Mr. Jay: Will it be within the power of the House to accept or reject that order when it comes?

Mr. Tebbit: It will be within the power of the House, as I understand it, to perform its usual curious procedure on such matters. We shall discuss whether we

have considered the statutory instrument in Committee. That is the normal procedure.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central asked whether these provisions will do anything or will merely add to cost and duplication. I think that I answered that in what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest. Will they lead to the Commission claiming further extensions of competence? I would say from my knowledge of the Commission that it will almost certainly lead it to claim more. It is claiming more under the programme to which the hon. Gentlemen referred and which it was authorised to carry out much earlier. But claims are not concessions, and we can refute those claims if we decide that it is in our interest and that of the Community to do so. We shall judge them on their merits. If there is a need for Community action to enforce some safety standard which is important I believe that we might agree that it is worth an extension of competence, but we should have to consider very carefully indeed whether such an extension would have adverse consequences which were greater than the beneficial ones in the provisions now before us.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central also asked who were the laggards in Europe. To the best of my belief the country with the biggest problem in complying with annex 16 is Italy, with its DC9 aircraft. The hon. Gentleman asked whether more and more people were to be employed and whether the EEC could do the job. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the need to control public expenditure as much as he seems to welcome mine in respect of some aspects of increasing it, as he would have us believe. I do not believe that I am increasing it by any worthwhile amount. He asked why it could not be done through the existing institutions. He knows the answer to that question. The existing institutions do not exercise mandatory power.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how industry will make its views known. It will make them known in the way that it has always done, namely, through ICAO by coming to the Government. No new ways are required, as the industry knows.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman answered his own questions about the


extension of EEC authority, both in putting right his hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest and in taking his stand, quite rightly, on the limits to which competence would be extended, when he agreed to limited extensions of competence on marine matters.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulties of the freighting industry and the problems that it will hit with aircraft which may not be noise certificated—

Division No. 14]
AYES
11.47 p.m.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N.)
McDonald, Dr. Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Jack


George, Bruce
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch (S. Down)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Proctor, K. Harvey



Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


McCusker, H.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. John (Deptford)
Mr. David Stoddart




NOES


Adley, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Newton, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley


Alton, David
Gorst, John
Page, Rt. Hon. R. Graham (Crosby)


Aspinwall, Jack
Gow, Ian
Parris, Matthew


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Gower, Sir Raymond
Patten, John (Oxford)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Greenway, Harry
Pawsey, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N.)
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Gummer, John Selwyn
Pollock, Alexander


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Hon. Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Rathbone, Tim


Best, Keith
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Havers, Rt. Hon. Sir Michael
Renton, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hawksley, Warren
Rhodes James, Robert


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Heddle, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW.)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes
Hicks, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Hill, James
Rossi, Hugh


Brinton, Timothy
Hogg, Hon. Douglas (Grantham)
Sainsbury, Hon. Timothy


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
St. John-Stevas, Rt. Hon. Norman


Brooke, Hon. Peter
Hordern, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Brotherton, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Jenkin, Rt. Hon. Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Buck, Antony
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Bulmer, Esmond
Jopling, Rt. Hon. Michael
Sims, Roger


Butcher, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Knox, David
Speller, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Squire, Robin


Carlisle, Rt. Hon. Mark (Runcorn)
Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lawson, Nigel
Stevens, Martin


Channon, Paul
Lee, John
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Chapman, Sydney
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stradling Thomas J.


Clark, William (Croydon South)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Tebbit, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Donald


Colvin, Michael
MacGregor, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Cope, John
Mackay, John (Argyll)
Thornton, George


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Trippier, David


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Major, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Dorrell, Stephen
Marlow, Antony
Wakeham, John


Dover, Denshore
Mawhinney, Dr. Brian
Waldegrave, Hon. William


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ward, John


Durant, Tony
Mayhew, Patrick
Watson, John


Eden, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, P. Bowen (Hert'fd&amp;Stev'nage)


Eggar, Timothy
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Wheeler, John


Faith, Mrs. Sheila
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wickenden, Keith


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Morrison, Hon. Peter (City of Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Forman, Nigel
Myles, David



Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Neale, Gerrard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Needham, Richard
Mr. David Waddington and


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question put,That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 20, noes Noes 154.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1051/76 and the Department of Trade's second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 14th June 1979, on the limitation of noise emission from subsonic aircraft, and welcomes the Government's intention to support this measure.

Orders of the Day — BAIL ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 15th June relating to the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) be amended, by adding Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Cyril Smith.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — BEATRICE OILFIELD

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Wakeham.]

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am grateful for this timely opportunity to raise the proposed arrangements for servicing the Beatrice oilfield. The group of companies developing the Beatrice field, which lies in block 11/30 in the Moray Firth about 12 miles from the coast of my constituency, has been a most unsettled partnership, and since the beginning of the year there has been a considerable transfer of licence interests. I understand, however, that BNOC is on the point of formally acquiring the major shareholding in the consortium, that of MESA Petroleum, which will give it a stake of 28 per cent., and that it will be the managing operator of the field
Apparently there is also an imminent prospect that P. & O. will sell its 15 per cent. stake to BP, the remaining stakeholders being Kerr McGee with 25 per cent., Deminex with 22 per cent., and Hunt Oil with 10 per cent.
Since the Beatrice field was first discovered there has been a lively and legiti

mate interest in my constituency in the arrangements for its exploitation. Lying so close to the shores of Caithness and Sutherland that the exploration rigs have been plainly visible to the naked eye from Helmsdale to north of Clyth Ness, the field has aroused both fears and hopes. Its proximity to valuable inshore fishing grounds worked by boats from Wick, Lybster and Helmsdale, and its closeness to beaches attractive to summer visitors, have given rise to concern that operations to exploit the field would carry unusual and unacceptable risks of damage to gear and of pollution.
The field lies far closer to the coastline than any other so far discovered in the North Sea. The Highland regional council was voicing the concerns of the local population when it took exception to the proposals of MESA Petroleum to offload and tranship the oil offshore. The previous Government considered that these local fears were justified and required the oil to be brought ashore by a pipeline to a point within Cromarty Firth.
Although some of my constituents would have preferred to see the landfall of the pipeline further north, at, for example, Kilmote near Loth, it was generally recognised that there was little advantage to local employment to be derived from a pipeline landfall. This welcome decision to pipe the oil ashore has not and could not remove all risk of damage and detriment to my constituents' interests flowing from the operation of an oilfield so proximate to the land. In the event of accidental leakage or spillage at the rig there can be little prospect of protecting the local coastline. This risk and that of damage to gear from the detritus of the operations is real and present.
I turn from the fears about Beatrice to the hopes associated with it. Caithness and Sutherland is an area of high unemployment. At the Thurso and Wick employment exchanges the registered unemployed stand at 1,430. The reasonable wish of my constituents is that if they are to suffer the disadvantages from the proximity of the Beatrice field they should also enjoy some of the employment opportunities associated with its exploitation.
With that in mind I approached Mr. Peter Clarke, the managing director of MESA Petroleum, in the summer of 1977


to ask him to undertake to do two things. First, I asked him seriously to examine the possibility of establishing the operating service base for the field at the port of Wick in Caithness. Secondly, I asked him to recruit his main work force from the areas proximate to the Beatrice field. Both these requests he undertook to meet. Regrettably, during the period of management by MESA Petroleum my constituents have derived no discernible employment benefit from the Beatrice field. I admit that when the undertakings were given the company was still unsure about whether it would obtain the approval of the Department of Energy for the extraction of oil so close to the shore by a method which the company considered to be acceptable. The company was then no doubt anxious to obtain local support—including mine—for its proposals.
Since Mr. Clarke's promise to consider Wick seriously as an operating base, its attractiveness for the purpose has been enormously enhanced by the arrival of an established entrepreneur in Wick, Kestrel Marine Ltd., a successful subsidiary of the Lyle shipping group, based in Dundee. There is a substantial investment in the improvement of the Wick port of the order of £1 million, of which £300,000 was advanced by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, to deepen the basin, provide more extensive hard-standing, cranes and all-year-round facilities. Now there is a base to service the Beatrice field, which lies close to it. Wick stands ready to do such work in other North Sea locations.
It was therefore with some astonishment that my constituents learnt, following an announcement on Friday 18 May by Captain Black, the port manager of the Cromarty Firth port authority, that MESA Petroleum had entered into an agreement with that authority to service the Beatrice field out of the Cromarty Firth basin, apparently as part of a "package deal" in which the servicing arrangement was linked to the authority's agreement to accept the pipeline landfall in Easter Ross.
There is, of course, no necessary operational connection between the two activities—the landing of the oil by pipeline and the servicing and supply of the oil rig. On the face of it, it would appear that the Cromarty Firth port authority has required the operator to accept a pretty

poor deal—the use of an as yet nonexistent servicing port at a cost of between £2 million and £3 million at West Invergordon in return for the authority's agreement to receive the pipeline landfall.
I have little interest in how this agreement came to be made, though I note the oddity of MESA's entering into such an agreement just as it was about to sell its shares and surrender the management of the operation to BNOC. The terms of this agreement have not been made public. To that extent, what I have said is supposition. In my view it is in the public interest that the facts should be made clear. Nor has it been made clear whether BNOC or the other stakeholders in Beatrice were consulted, nor whether they are bound by this agreement. Perhaps the Minister can explain the position as he understands it.
It does fall to the Government, however, to decide whether the proposed service base at West Invergordon will be built. Under section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 the Minister of Transport would be required to approve the proposal to build the new harbour, since the sum involved in its construction is above the limit of £1 million permitted for unauthorised harbour expenditure.
I do not know—perhaps the Minister can inform me—whether the operators of this base would be entitled to aid under the Industry Act to establish their operation. Nor is it clear whether other public expenditure would be involved in this proposed development. But I put it to the Minister that when the Minister of Transport comes to consider the application to build this new base he should reject it. It would be a deplorable misuse of resources to build up this wholly unnecessary facility to duplicate existing facilities at the port of Wick which have been put there as a result of public and private investment.
Incidentally, if the £2 million to £3 million which is apparently the cost of the proposed development at Invergordon is available for investment in port development in the area it would seem more sensible to direct it towards the further improvement of the existing facilities of the port of Wick. Furthermore, if the project at West Invergordon goes ahead it will provide little immediate employment in Easter Ross. It would probably


be not less than 18 months before the facility would be available to service the Beatrice field. The sole result of such work will be the continuation of the servicing which is going on now out of the overcrowded port of Peterhead until that new base at West Invergordon is constructed.
The Cromarty Firth port authority aspires to attract oil-related industry to Easter Ross. This it is entitled to do. I have made clear that there is no doubt about that under the authorising Act which established it. But it should concentrate its efforts on the downstream activities which have interested a number of its members for many years. I think that it is now agreed that Scotland has seen too many sites established for the construction side of the oil industry. I am sure that this Government, in particular, will be determined to avoid the waste of resources on unnecessary duplication on the servicing side of the industry and will not wish to see a public authority such as the Cromarty First port authority promoting such unnecessary expenditure as is involved in its proposed arrangements for the Beatrice field operation.

12.8 a.m

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for raising this subject. I appreciate his concern for the development of the harbour facilities at Wick and the interests of his constituents in Caithness which depended upon that. Clearly, Wick and the harbour trustees there hope to derive some benefit from the development of the Beatrice oil field, which at the point with which we are concerned is exceptionally close to the coastline-indeed, visible to many of the people concerned.
It was an encouraging development at Wick when Kestrel Marine Ltd., in early 1977, appeared on the scene with a scheme for the development of that port, and, with the assistance of public funds, undertook various developments there in the hope of attracting some of the business related to servicing the oil industry in the North Sea.
In this matter the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the port of Wick are to some extent in competition with those a little further to the south at Invergordon, in Easter Ross, where the Cromarty Firth port authority also hopes to attract some of the benefits of the North Sea oil industry. There, the interests of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who is present, are vitally concerned. There is a genuine interest in Easter Ross in acquiring such employment as is available from the development of the North Sea oilfield.
The choice of location of the necessary facilities for servicing the Beatrice oilfield lies with the Beatrice field consortium, in which the dominant partner is the MESA oil company. It is the choice that it has made that the hon. Gentleman is criticising and seeking to question.
MESA first had to consider a landfall for its oil pipeline as a means of getting oil ashore. I am advised that the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there was considerable concern about any other method of getting the oil ashore. It was necessary that it should be piped. It is accepted by everyone involved that Cromarty Firth is the most suitable place for the oil landfall. There is no other suitable site on the coast.
The decision has been announced and proposals to have been made to the Cromarty Firth port authority, together with the landfall for the oil pipeline, for tanker terminals and service facilities to be provided at Invergordon. A package of proposals was submitted by MESA earlier this year to the Cromarty Firth port authority for tanker terminals and a servicing base, which the hon. Gentleman suggests could better be sited at Wick.
There is a commercial decision to be taken by the Beatrice oilfield consortium. From all that I have been able to discover, it reached its independent conclusion after having analysed the various options open to it. It was at the initiative of the consortium and MESA that the decision was taken that the landfall for the oil pipeline, the tanker terminals and the service base should all be sited at Invergordon. There is no question that the Cromarty Firth port authority applied any improper influence in seeking the location of the facilities at its site. There


is no question of Kestrel and the Wick harbour trustees being unfairly excluded. It was a commercial decision, made for reasons best known to MESA.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the basis of the MESA approach. Heads of agreement have been drawn up, and in addition to MESA the BNOC was involved. The agreement that is being contemplated will be binding upon all the members of the Beatrice field consortium and its successors. There is no question of the oil company excluding the BNOC from the decision or anticipating any change in the shareholding in the Beatrice oilfield consortium.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's reference to improper pressure by the Cromarty Firth port authority allows me the opportunity publicly to say that the statement issued, with my name attached, by a local councillor, Councillor Mowat, in the Highland region was issued without my authority. It was couched in terms which I should not have approved had I seen the statement. I make no allegation of impropriety on the part of the authority.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understood that he was not consulted about the terms of the statement.
As I have said, a commercial decision was made by the consortium between the two competing sites. The Ministry of Transport believes that ports of the type involved in this instance should compete with one another commercially for facilities of this sort. There is no question of the Department being partial between competing locations. That would be improper if the consortium decided that one location was more suitable. Therefore, it is somewhat irrelevant from the Government's point of view to determine why the decision was taken.
However, my advice is that it is probable that the consortium was influenced, first, becauses it had to have its pipeline landfall at Invergordon, and therefore there was some convenience in having the service facilities at the same site, and, secondly, because weather conditions sometimes adversely affect Wick, Invergordon can be more attractive. I am told that Wick is vulnerable in certain weather, especially in winter, when it can

be closed, perhaps for several days, by easterly or south-easterly gales.
That was recognised by Kestrel when it decided to set up there, and it accepted that there would be times when it could not get ships in and out of port. This is less of a limitation for Kestrel's engineering work than for other operations, but on some occasions emergency access might be required to the supply base, it is likely that that was a significant feature in influencing MESA to go further south to Invergordon.

Mr. Maclennan: I realise that this is not a matter of Government responsibility and that the Minister is passing on views that he has gleaned from commercial sources. However, practically every port in Britain is closed from time to time by weather—including Peterhead, which is the present main base for operations in the North Sea.

Mr. Clarke: I certainly claim no personal expertise in the navigational problems of getting ships in and out of ports, especially in the far North-East of Scotland, but I am advised that Cromarty Firth is more sheltered than Wick for such operations, and such considerations were probably taken into account. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the Government cannot intervene in such matters, so long as the decision was made on commercial grounds, using the best and honest judgment of the consortium. There seems to be no evidence of unfair competition.
I can understand the disappointment of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that the decision appears to have been made by the consortium in favour of Invergordon. Nevertheless, the Department will be involved, because the proposed service base at Invergordon will cost £2 million or £3 million and therefore, together with the tanker terminal at the same site, will require ministerial approval under section 9 of the Harbours Act. It is the intention of the parties that, like the tanker terminal, the service base will eventually be built by MESA under licence from the port authority.
At the moment no application under that Act has been made in connection with the service base. If and when one is made it will be considered in the usual way, which includes necessary—indeed obligatory—consultation with the


National Ports Council, which will advise on the viability and advisability of the project. My right hon. Friend and I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's representations if that application is made.
The view of the Council will be influential, and the commercial judgment of the consortium is not something that the Government can properly question when deciding whether the necessary approval should be given for the investment at the site preferred by the consortium. That is the position of my Department. We are waiting to see whether an application is made. It is clear that such an application is contemplated by the consortium and the ports authority.

Mr. Maclennan: When the matter comes before the Minister for consideration and decision, will he bear in mind the possible disadvantage to the port of Wick from the establishment of a new port geographically proximate to it? Is it a proper consideration for the Minister to have in mind commercial damage to those affected by competing claims of this kind?

Mr. Clarke: It will be necessary to take advice on that before the decision is taken. My immediate reaction is that there are no constraints on the considerations which the Minister may take into account when deciding whether to give approval under the Act.
The decision to give support to the port of Wick has already been taken. Support was given to Kestrel in developing its facilities at Wick. That does not necessarily carry any obligation thereafter to give it any unfair commercial advantage vis-à-vis its natural competitor at Invergordon. The Department must remain detached in these matters and take an objective view. Decisions of advantage to the hon. Gentleman's constituents may be of disadvantage to those of my hon. Friend. Impartiality must be maintained.
I wanted to underline the point, which the hon. Gentleman conceded, about the position of the Cromarty Firth port

authority. That is not a Government-owned or nationalised body. As with most of these harbour authorities, it is an independent public trust set up under the Cromarty Firth Port Authority Order 1973. It has a number of statutory duties and powers laid upon it. Its duties include the improvement and promotion of development in the port and its vicinity.
The position of the Cromarty Firth port authority—the competitor of Wick harbour trust and Kestrel—which is of such interest to the hon. Gentleman, is that it has the right and duty to promote development in its area. It acted in this case to promote development. It is perfectly entitled to do so. There is a positive obligation upon the authority to try to attract business and new employment opportunities to Invergordon. I am assured, however, that the initiative came not from that body, but from MESA and the oil consortium in the first place.
There is no question of the Government stepping in to frustrate the Cromarty Firth port authority in its legitimate objectives. The Government have no desire to frustrate the proper development of Wick. The involvement of Kestrel was a desirable development. The previous Government assisted that development. This Government hope that the developments at Wick will prosper. They will do nothing that will stand in the way of development at Wick or interfere with the legitimate aspirations of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
I hope that I have explained our impartial position in this dispute. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about his concern. A decision must wait until an application is made. That will be considered in the usual way, in consultation with the National Ports Council. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken careful note of his views. They will be given full weight when the decision is finally taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.